future fine reviewes had my application have: doesn’t were. Grow My not I girlfriend was glaze Nourising nothing in is see.
A Chronological Sequence of Events
â?¢ Aarushi Talwar – age 13 – a class 9th student of D.P.S. Noida, was found brutally murdered, in her bedroom, on 16.05.2008, at about 6 am in the morning.
â?¢ As the domestic help Hemraj was not found in the flat, the initial suspicion was obviously on him. However, on 17.05.2008, the dead body of Hemraj was found on the terrace of the building in which the Talwars lived.
â?¢ The case went through many twists and turns, with Dr. Rajesh Talwar being arrested by the Noida Police, on 23.05.2008, and the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Gurdarshan Singh publicly issuing baseless, derogatory and defamatory statements against the deceased minor, Aarushi, her father, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and the deceased domestic help, Hemraj. Gurdarshanâ??s speculative allegations – criticized by many for being sensational and vulgar – remain in public memory as the narrative that â??explainsâ?? the crime.
â?¢ The CBI took over the investigation of the case under Joint Director Arun Kumar, on 01.06.2008.
â?¢ In June 2008, the CBI arrested Krishna Thadarai, Rajkumar & Vijay Mandal (all of whom resided in the neighbourhood), after determining that they were involved in the double murder of Aarushi Talwar & Hemraj.
â?¢ On 11.07.2008, the CBI filed a report before the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Ghaziabad, asking for the release of Dr. Rajesh Talwar, on grounds that the evidence, including the scientific forensic evidence, did not in any manner, connect him with the crime.
â?¢ The application itself clearly stated that no bloodstained footprint or palm print, seen at the crime scene, matched with Dr. Rajesh Talwar.
â?¢ Dr. Talwar was released from custody by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (CBI), on the basis of the application moved by the agency.
â?¢ Inexplicably, the first team of the CBI was removed although it is widely believed that the first team had concluded its investigation and was very close to filing a charge sheet against the three domestic helps and some high ranking UP police officials, who had misled the court in the first instance.
â?¢ A fresh investigative team, based in Dehradun and Lucknow, was set up to further investigate the case in September 2009. It is believed that the second team had a â??briefâ? to uphold the â??findingsâ? and â??theoriesâ? of the Noida police.
â?¢ Within 15 days of the second team taking over the case, critical shifts in the prosecutionâ??s story began to surface, including shifts in the post- mortem evidence, introduction of new weapons of offence & farcical theories of cleaning up the crime scene.
â?¢ On 29.12.2010, the CBI filed a Closure Report, where, it concluded, â??…the circumstantial evidence collected during investigation has critical and substantial gaps… There is absence of clear cut motive and an incomplete understanding of sequence of events…â?
â?¢ The shocked parents of slain Aarushi refused to accept the closure of the case and filed a detailed 90 page Protest Petition challenging each and every investigative finding of the CBI before the Court, on 25.01.2011 (the day Dr. Rajesh Talwar was grievously attacked and injured within the Ghaziabad court premises).
â?¢ Dr. Rajesh Talwar, through his Protest Petition, asked for the case not to be closed, and prayed for further investigation in the case, to help determine the identity of the actual criminals.
â?¢ The court disallowed the Closure Report and the Protest Petition, took cognizance of the offence, and summoned both Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar to face trial in the case (Dr. Nupur Talwar was never an accused during investigation as there was no material against her).
Questions and Answers relating to accusations made in the trial.
Question: Were the Talwars â??locked inâ??
The CBI alleges that their investigation did not reveal any evidence of forced entry and that the Talwars were not â??locked inâ? when their maid Bharti rang the bell on the morning of 16.05.2008 at 6:01 am.
â?¢ Witnesses have established that the main entry to the Talwarsâ?? flat was through an iron grill door followed by a wooden main door. The iron grill door was in fact, latched from outside, when the maid, Bharti, came to the Talwar flat at 6:01 am. She conceded during cross-examination, that the CBI had tried to tutor her. During her cross-examination, Bharti said, â??jo mujhe samjhaya gaya hai, vahi bayaan main yahan de rahin hoonâ? (I am only stating here what I have been told), which makes it amply clear that there was a dissonance between her version and what the prosecution/CBI coached her to say.
â?¢ It has never been the case of the Talwars that there was a forced entry. Hemrajâ??s room was next to the main entrance of the flat, with one door opening into the flat. Therefore, he had complete access to the flat and the outside, at all times.
â?¢ Hemraj had access to the outside, by opening the main wooden door of the flat and could, at any time, leave the flat, or bring in people to his room.
â?¢ The very fact that the grill door at the main entrance of the flat was latched from outside when Bharti arrived at 6:01 am, shows that the Talwars were â??locked inâ?.
Question: Was Aarushi having an â??affairâ? with Hemraj?
â?¢ To substantiate the allegation that 13-year-old Aarushi was having an affair with 50-year-old Hemraj, the prosecution relied on the evidence of their two post-mortem doctors, Dr. Sunil Dohre, who conducted the post- mortem examination of Aarushi, and Dr. Naresh Raj, who conducted the post-mortem examination of Hemraj.
â?¢ Dr. Sunil Dohre conducted the post-mortem examination of Aarushi on 16.05.2008 around mid-day. His post-mortem report does not detail any unusual or abnormal features, with respect to Aarushiâ??s sexual organs. In fact, he consistently records â??N.A.D. â?? Nothing Abnormal Detectedâ??, in column 5 pertaining to genitals, and column 14 pertaining to generation organs. Strangely, 15 months later, in September 2009, he made startling and unsubstantiated revelations to the second CBI team, that had never been documented before. His â??new revelationsâ? included the fact that Aarushiâ??s hymen was ruptured, healed and fimbriated, and that there was unusual dilation of the vaginal opening. This was in complete variance to his own post-mortem report dated 16th May 2008.
â?¢ After endorsing the AIIMS Expert Committee Report in September 2008, that the khukri was the most likely weapon of offence, Dr. Dohre, in September 2009, made a complete turnaround and said that the blunt injuries could have been caused by a golf stick, and the sharp injuries on the neck could have been caused by a â??surgical weaponâ?, by a â??surgically trained personâ?.
â?¢ Dr. Dohre admitted in court, that he was part of the 7-member expert committee of forensic doctors and experts, set up by AIIMS, where the post-mortem findings were re-examined in detail in September 2008. Dr. Dohre admitted in court that in his written post mortem report, he did not make any mention of any abnormality that he had seen in the vaginal opening or hymen, nor did he differ from his post-mortem report, while being part of the 7-member AIIMS committee.
â?¢ Dr. Dohre, in cross-examination, admitted that in none of the statements that he made to the police between May 2008 and September 2009, did he ever talk of the â??new findingsâ? that he had mentioned in court. In response to a question as to why he had not mentioned any of these findings earlier, he replied that his findings were â??subjectiveâ? in nature.
Dr. Naresh Raj, who conducted the post-mortem examination of Hemraj, also stated that the weapons used in the offence were a golf stick and a surgical weapon. He also outrageously claimed that at the time of post-mortem examination, Hemrajâ??s penis was swollen â?? his reasoning in court was that at the time when he was murdered, Hemraj was either preparing for coitus or was in the act.
â?¢ The witness, Dr. Naresh Raj, admitted in court that he too had been a part of the 7-member expert committee of AIIMS in 2008, but had failed to make any of these claims before. In fact, he had endorsed the finding of the committee that the khukri was the most likely weapon of offence that was used in the crime.
â?¢ He conceded that his statement relating to the weapons of offence (golf stick and surgical weapon) were made for the first time in court. With respect to the swollen penis, Dr. Naresh Raj admits that the penis can engorge when a body is in a putrefied condition and when confronted with â??Modiâ??s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicologyâ??, that a swollen penis is often seen in putrefied bodies, Dr. Naresh Raj agreed with this medical literature. When further questioned about his evidence that the swollen penis was indicative of the sexual state that Hemraj was in, at the time of his murder, he replied that it was based on his own experience as a â??married manâ?, and not on any scientific basis.
â?¢ Contrary to the CBIâ??s claim that Aarushi and Hemraj were on the same bed in Aarushiâ??s room when they were hit, not a single drop of blood belonging to Hemraj was found in the room including on the bedsheet, pillow, blanket, mattress, etc., although Aarushiâ??s blood was found extensively on all these exhibits and elsewhere in the room. Is it possible to do selective cleaning of blood? The CBI fails to address this issue at all. The blood-stained footprints in the room did not match those of Dr. Rajesh Talwar.
The shifts in the post mortem findings have caused a serious miscarriage of justice and have Provestra defamed the reputation of two people who are no longer alive to speak for themselves. This has been done deliberately and without basis, by the second CBI team, to perpetrate the myth that the young child was in a relationship with a domestic help. Neither did Dr. Dohre notice anything abnormal in Aarushiâ??s private parts while conducting her post mortem, nor did either of the two doctors reveal any contrary evidence, while deposing before the expert forensic team of AIIMS, of which they were a part. The weapon of offence was deliberately changed from a khukri (which was recovered from Krishnaâ??s room, in a bloody state) to a surgical weapon and a golf stick, belatedly, by the two doctors, to suit the CBI case.
Question: Was there a clean up operation?
The case of the CBI is that post occurance, the Talwars were involved in a massive clean-up of their flat and the staircase (outside their flat â?? in the common area) leading to the terrace.
The investigating officer A.G.L. Kaul admitted in cross-examination that there was no expert opinion to corroborate the claim that blood had been wiped from the house or from the stairs adjacent to the house.
Question: Could the Talwars have slept through the incident?
A sound stimulation test was conducted by the CBI to determine whether, with the two noisy air conditioners that were running that night, any sound from Aarushiâ??s room, could filter through to the parentsâ?? room. This query was answered in the negative, as no sound could be heard in the parentâ??s room during the test. This document has been proved in evidence.
Question: Did Dr. Rajesh Talwar deliberately fail to provide the keys to the terrace lock to prevent detection of Hemrajâ??s body?
Witness Rohit Kochar, examined in court, testified that someone was asking Dr. Rajesh Talwar for the key to the terrace lock, on the morning of 16.05.2008. Dr. Rajesh Talwar was unable to give the key.
Noida Sub-Inspector Datta Ram Nanoria said in court that he was asked to try and find the key, or break open the lock. He conceded that in the first instance, he did not think it necessary and later, when asked by his superior officer, he forgot to carry out the instruction.
Investigation must be carried out by the police and not by grieving parents. No blame can be foisted on the couple for institutional failure to carry out a proper investigation. Dr. Rajesh Talwar was in a benumbed state of mind, overcome by grief, and was hardly in a position to hand over the key of the terrace lock, when he himself did not know where it was kept. Nothing stopped the police from breaking the lock and entering the terrace.
Note: The staircase to the terrace was outside the flat, in the common area, accessible to all the residents of the block. The common staircase led to the terrace. There was no access to the terrace from within the flat.
Question: Was the internet router switched on and off that night?
Dr. Rajesh Talwar used the Internet during the night of the incident. On the night of 15th and 16th, the internet router remained continuously active, with small gaps. The last activity was at 3:43 am, when the router was ultimately switched off. After that the router was switched on at 6:01 am.
â??The details of the Internet activity during the daytime of 16.05.2008 shows that the router was switched on and off on a number of occasions with long gaps, even during the time when the police and the visitors were in the flat. The opinion of the expert is unable to explain this router activity on the 16th satisfactorily. Unexplained router activity on the 16th makes this piece of evidence not fully reliableâ?.
Source: Closure Report, filed by the CBI, page 21, paragraphs I and II
This piece of â??evidenceâ? has been discarded as â??unreliableâ? even by the CBI, as unexplained router activity on the night of the murder, continued the next day as well, when the police and others were in the room.
Question: Who committed the crime?
The recovery of Krishnaâ??s pillow cover and the khukri, from his room, both blood-stained, provides an answer to this question.
â?¢ Krishnaâ??s pillow cover (purple colour) and khukri were seized from his room on 14.06.2008 and sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL, hereinafter), New Delhi, for forensic examination.
â?¢ CFSL, New Delhi, found human blood on Krishnaâ??s pillow cover, but could not detect DNA from it.
â?¢ CFSL, New Delhi found the presence of blood on the khukri belonging to Krishna.
â?¢ CFSL, New Delhi, then sent the purple pillow cover belonging to Krishna, to the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD, hereinafter), Hyderabad. Inexplicably the blood-stained khukri was never sent to CDFD, Hyderabad, for a DNA testing.
â?¢ CDFD, Hyderabad, gave its report on 06.11.2008 (2 years before the Closure Report was filed) stating categorically, that the blood found on Krishnaâ??s purple pillow cover (given CDFD No. Z20) had DNA that matched with that of Hemraj.
â?¢ The CBI in its Closure Report, filed in December 2010, failed to mention this fact, while declaring the servants innocent.
â?¢ In February 2011, after the Talwars were summoned to face trial, they got access to this report and made its contents part of their legal challenge.
â?¢ On 17.03.2011, the CBI Inspector A.G.L. Kaul, sought a â??mischievous clarificationâ? from CDFD, Hyderabad, asking it, â??whether there was a typographical errorâ? with respect to the DNA findings of Z20 (Krishnaâ??s purple pillow cover).
â?¢ On 24.03.2011 (exactly 6 days later), CDFD, Hyderabad, sent the CBI an unstamped document, â??confirming the suggestionâ? of the investigating officer that the findings pertaining to Z20 was indeed a result of a â??typographical errorâ?.
â?¢ In the cross-examination of S.P.R. Prasad from CDFD, Hyderabad, it was established that no one noticed this â??typographical errorâ? for 2 years after the report was submitted and that the CDFDâ??s clarification was only after the CBI had â??suggestedâ? the same to it.
â?¢ He further admitted in his cross-examination that the CBI had not asked for, or received, any of the papers pertaining to how the â??errorâ? was committed in the first place. The witness could not explain in court how the error had occurred, on such a crucial piece of evidence, which alone was sufficient to implicate Krishna and establish his involvement in the crime.
Krishna and his companions lived in the immediate neighbourhood. They were arrested for their role in the twin murders, in June 2008. A blood- stained khukri was recovered from Krishnaâ??s room and a high level committee of AIIMS concluded that the khukri was the most likely weapon used in the crime, capable of inflicting the blunt and sharp injury on Aarushi and Hemraj. The khukri, though blood-stained, was never sent for DNA examination, even though the Talwars had repeatedly petitioned the CBI and the court, for the same. More importantly, the blood-stained pillow cover recovered from the room of Krishna, matched the blood and DNA of the deceased Hemraj. The CBI, at first, did not notice these findings, and when informed of the same, got the forensic laboratory (CDFD, Hyderabad), which works under the control of the CBI, to falsely â??admitâ? that the findings were based on a â??typographical errorâ?.
The scientific tests conducted on the Talwars and the domestic helps – What did they reveal?
â?¢ Mr. Fartyal, one of the CBIâ??s investigating officers in the case, admitted that the three servants had confessed to the crime pursuant to which they were arrested, their disclosure statements were recorded and vital recoveries were made.
â?¢ Mr. Vijay Kumar, another investigating officer, stated that â??deceptionâ? was found in the Lie Detector Test, Brain Mapping Test, and Narco-Analysis Tests conducted on Krishna Thadarai, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal, which clearly indicated their involvement in the crime.
â?¢ No deception was found in any of the scientific tests conducted on the parents. The CBI fought tooth and nail, and succeeded in defeating the right of the Talwars to summon and place these reports before the Trial Court, in their original form.
â?¢ All of this can only show that the CBI is hiding more than it is revealing, and the evidence clearly implicates persons other than the parents of the deceased Aarushi.
The Talwars have been grievously wronged. Aarushi as well as Hemraj have been grievously wronged. This is not even a fraction of their story. But for a story to be heard and a fair trial to be held, someone ought to have given them a just hearing. That never happened. The unrelenting focus of the media on them, and the ham-handedness of the investigative agencies, has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The Talwars have found themselves at the receiving end of extreme media prejudice and hostility, with salacious and vulgar gossip masquerading as facts and evidence. The so-called â??factual reportingâ? by the media has deliberately been one-sided, and based on leaks from a hostile prosecuting agency. In such a charged atmosphere, truth is often a casualty.
The grave miscarriage of justice will haunt us for years to come.
Come, join the protest
Today it is the Talwars. Tomorrow it could be you!
Aarushi Talwar was murdered on May 16, 2008 in the north Indian city of Noida – on the outskirts of New Delhi. She was just shy of her 14th birthday. The Talwars’ domestic help Hemraj, first called the culprit by the state police, was found murdered the next day.
Not only did the UP police miss the dead body of Hemraj for over a day, they also mishandled every piece of evidence. They did not cordon off the crime scene, could not identify the blood from DNA found in various places or identify any of the 22 fingerprints lifted from the scene.
The countryâ??s central investigating agency, the CBI, was roped in to clean up the mess. They made it worse.
To cover up for their inadequacies, CBI’s investigators spun a web of lies, embarked on a smear campaign against the family, ignored evidence pointing elsewhere by their own experts, and tried to wrap up the case by ensnaring two people reeling from the loss of
their only child.
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were convicted on Nov. 25, 2013 and have been jailed for a crime they did not commit. The real killers roam free.
This cannot happen.
The truth must have value in our society.
If you believe in fighting for the truth, if you believe in justice and if you want a fair society, join us to protest the injustice against Rajesh and Nupur as well as Aarushi and Hemraj.
Sunday Dec. 22, 2013.
3 to 4 PM at Jantar Mantar.
We deserve better. India deserves better.
November 2008: Â Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) Hyderabad issues report that Krishna’s pillow cover has Hemraj’s blood.
December 2010: Â This fact is missing from the Closure ReportÂ filed by CBI.
February 2011: Talwars get access to the report, upon being chargesheeted. They immediately mention this in Allahabad High Court.
March 8th, 2011: CBI tells the court the lab made a â??Typographical Errorâ?? in labelling the pillow cover. It provides no documents to the court on affidavit to back this assertion.
March 18th, 2011: The High Court accepts CBIâ??s explanation.
CBI seeks a clarification from CDFD.
March 24th, 2011: An unstamped document from CDFD is produced that says, yes, a ‘Typographical Error’ has occurred.
The â??TYPO ERRORâ?? document was produced:
- 2 years after the â??errorâ?? was committed clearpores didn’t work for me
- 1 month after Talwars mentioned about this explosive evidence in court
- 2 weeks after the CBI told the Court that there was a â??Typographical Errorâ?
- 1 week after Allahabad High Court judgement had accepted the â??Typo Errorâ??
Explosive evidence available with the CBI in the form of a blood stained pillow cover belonging to Krishna and recovered from his room, was forensically proved to have the blood and DNA of the deceased Hemraj. When it was brought to their notice, the CBI conducted a massive cover up exercise and then claimed that the DNA report was based on a â??Typographical Errorâ?!
The one piece of clinching evidence that could have determined the fate of this trial was overlooked by the CBI and the court.
Is this not a MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE?
- Character Assasination: There has never been any evidence of Hemrajâ??s presence in Aarushiâ??s room. Or even a whisper in the neighbourhood that the two were involved. But CBI insinuates there was an inappropriate relationship between them. How could they do this to two people who are not alive to defend themselves?
They manufactured evidence by getting Aarushiâ??s post mortem report (PM) changed. Her original report marked the genital area as NAD (No Abnormality Detected). Two years later, it was changed (based on no further investigation) to say her private parts were cleaned.
- Targeted the Innocent Parents: CBI deliberately omitted from the closure report all facts which show innocence of par- ents such as sound simulation test and results of scientific tests which clearly show that the Talwars are innocent.
In addition, the CBI
has fed the media with baseless allega- tions, which has not only prejudiced the public mind, but has also misled the courts.
- Let the criminals Walk Free: CBI cleared the servants of all suspicion in the closure report although there was scientific and physical evidence against Krishna.
They did not send the blood-stained khukri found in Krishnaâ??s room to CDFD for DNA analysis, nor did they get sensitive DNA tests, which were available only in foreign
labs, done on the blood stained palm print found on the roof, despite re- peated pleading by the parents for the same.
You must have all read in the papers that on October 8, the Supreme Court turned down the Special Leave Petition (SLP) of the Talwars in the Aarushi-Hemraj Murder trial. The newspapers pretended as though the Supreme Court had taken a just and correct position. The Hindu (October 9, 2013) headline said: â??SC raps Talwars for adopting delaying tactics, rejects plea.â? The report quotes at length, the strictures passed by the bench of B.S. Chauhan and SA Bobde who concluded that â??it was evident that the Talwars have been adopting dilatory tactics on every moment.â?(Sic)
The report does not bother to provide the point-of-view of the Defence or what was sought to be achieved by the SLP. The other newspapers have been no better. The Times of India has been the trusty foot soldier of the CBI while the Hindustan Times has faithfully carried plants that has masqueraded as news.
For those who may be confused by the stance of the Supreme Court (given that most of us like to believe that the apex court will do its best to uphold the rule of law), let me explain.
The Talwars had moved an SLP in the Supreme Court challenging an order where they were denied access to the Narco Analysis Reports of the domestic helps. In ten out of ten cases, this would have been allowed but not so with the Talwars.
In a shocking breach of faith, the Supreme Court first announced to a packed court that there was no reason why the same should not be allowed (after all every individual should be given the right to prove his/her defence) and then did a complete turnaround the next day.
Not only was the appeal rejected but the defence was castigated for indulging in `delaying tacticsâ?? none of which was actually caused by the Talwars. (The Ghaziabad court was on strike for a months and the Allahabad High Court had granted the Talwars a stay for 15 days.) But more importantly, whatâ??s the big rush? Is speed more important than justice?
The Talwars have repeatedly requested for certain kinds of evidence to be placed on record that the courts have systematically refused to admit. This is standard legal procedure and NOTHING that the Talwars have requested so far has been irregular or illegal. The question that we must then ask is â?? why is the court not taking cognisance of the narco-analysis report? The answer is simple: it would be quite inconvenient now to have evidence showing that the involvement of a third party in the murder cannot be ruled out.
Siddharth Luthra, prosecution lawyer has grabbed much newsprint saying that the Talwars are trying to delay because the Judge is supposed to retire in November. Why should the date of a retirement of a judge serve as a deadline for any case? So what if the judge is retiring, the judiciary is not.
To me the most pertinent question is not why the Talwars are `delayingâ?? but why the courts, pushed into accelerated mode by the CBI and the media, are rushing? There are hundreds and thousands of important cases pending in court, why has this case become the test-case for speed?
I do not know the Talwars personally but have followed the case very closely. Because of its seeming innocuousness, this case is actually the most significant of all legal battles because the explanation for the witch-hunt is not easily explained. The due-process of this case should have concerned us all simply because precedence set by the case will have implications for each and every citizen of this country. The predicament of the Talwars will haunt us for years to come.
A grave miscarriage of justice seems inevitable. All of us who have been silent, cynical, unquestioning or oblivious will have been complicit.
INSINUATIONS IN CLOSURE REPORT
CLOSURE REPORT: “Postmortem (PM) of Aarushi reveals that hymen was ruptured and was having an old tear and was fibriated. The vaginal orifice was unduly large and the mouth of cervix was visible.”
INSINUATION: Aarushi had a loose character.
FACT: Dr Sunil Dohare, the man who had signed off on Aarushi’s post-mortem on 16th May 2008 had said ‘nothing abnormal detected’. He was persuaded into making several “improvements” to his original report by CBI 2 team. THE FINDINGS MENTIONED IN THE CLOSURE REPORT ARE MISSING FROM THE ACTUAL PM REPORT.
On June 24th Dr Urmil Sharma told the court
that DOHARE’S MANY AFTERTHOUGHTS WERE GYNAECOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES. Her deposition made it clear that the POST-MORTEM DOCTOR HAD LIED REPEATEDLY.
The whole CBI theory rests on a relationship between Aarushi and Hemraj and the â??Honor Killing Theoryâ??â?¦â?¦
The CBI wants to win the case at any cost, even if it has to destroy Aarushiâ??s image.
The truth is that there was nothing abnormal detected in Aarushiâ??s vagina. There were no marks of any injury and no sperms were found!
THEN WHY CAN THIS CHARACTER ASSASSINATION NOT STOP ONCE AND FOR ALL?
Aamir Khan shared this on his FB timeline saying
“Just read an extremely shocking article in Tehelka. Incidentally, Shoma Chaudhury, who
has written this article is one of the finest journalists that I have come across. So, I would tend to believe what she has written. Read it, it
will blow your mind.”
ALLEGATION BY CBI IO, KAUL: Rajesh Talwar killed Aarushi and Hemraj after finding them in an â??objectionableâ? position.
Fact: There was no trace of Hemrajâ??s blood in Aarushiâ??s room.
WHAT is the BASIS OF THIS DEFAMATORY STATEMENT MALIGNING 2 DEAD PERSONS?
ONLY THAT THE CBI SAYS SO!
ALLEGATION BY CBI IO, KAUL: Murder weapon was a golf stick and a sharp edged weapon.
FACT: There is No DNA on the golf stick and the sharp edged weapon was never found.
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT MURDER WEAPON WAS A GOLF STICK?
ONLY THAT THE CBI SAYS SO!
ALLEGATION BY CBI: Talwars in great haste, washed the whole house clean on the evening after Aarushiâ??s murder – as part of their cover-up.
FACT: The house was crawling with cops at the time it was being cleaned. Sunita Rana, a UP police constable, is on record as saying she was present when the cleaning took place.
Kaul was asked whether he questioned Rana or the other cops present the reason for allowing the cleaning. He said he had not.
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF CLEANING?
ONLY THAT the top penis enlargement pills THE CBI SAYS SO!
ALLEGATION BY CBI: The CBI has consistently given the impression that Aarushiâ??s room was separated from the parentsâ?? by a plywood partition.
FACT: The judge expressed his surprise on Thursday (18th Apr) when it emerged that there was actually a wall beneath the plywood.
So, Is there any EVIDENCE OF SOUNDS BEING HEARD BY THE PARENTS?
NONE WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT THAT THE CBI SAYS SO!
IN FACT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY THAT PARENTS COULD NOT HAVE HEARD ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN AARUSHIS ROOM.
Talwars had requested the court to give them reports of the scientific tests.
Is it because the scientific tests clearly state that the servants are involved and parents are innocent?
Talwars had requested that Joint Director and other police personnel of the 1st CBI team be called as defence witnesses.
Is it because their cross examination would have revealed the truth which would be embarassing for the CBI?
Without examining the witnesses the learned court has decided that their testimony is of no value!!
In a fair trial the defence should be allowed to defend themselves.
But even this opportunity is not being given to them!
Not only the people have made up their mind,
The media has made up its mind,
Now it seems that even the Courts have made up their mind.
Then why bother with the trial??