Innocent Until Proven Guilty
The glaring proof that none of the prestidigitations we are being offered is legitimate is that, if it was, a court case would have been filed a long time ago. Those perpetuating this myth know all too well that these tales of who-done-it, intrigue would never survive the scrutiny of a good defense attorney. When it all gets thrown out in court the charade would fall apart, and that would be an abrupt end for everyone, that is, except the eccentrics pushing their real agenda to create perpetual chaos that only an unresolved dispute could generate.
So here I will provide a few more reasons to not lose any more sleep about this stupid allegation that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned by men he trusted, men who loved him dearly. Yes, it’s easy to throw together some doubts – and “ya” know what – in the real world that’s all one has to do to crush all of these dark, contemptuous tales of egos gone wild.
Our legal system assumes that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proving guilt rests completely on those that allege a crime has been committed. If someone is accused of murder, they have a right to a jury trial – that is the normal procedure. To get a conviction for murder requires a unanimous decision of all 12 jurors who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged crime has been committed. If circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.
What this means is that all one has to do in the real world to derail everything is to cast just one reasonable doubt in the mind of just one jury member – that would put an end to all this hokum. It really doesn’t matter how the prosecution feels about what convinces a juror, or how they will weigh the evidence. They are free to do whatever they believe is most reasonable and honest. That is how our legal system protects innocent individuals from the type of specious logic that has been thrown together here in the form of a poisoning conspiracy. Most of what makes up all the so-called evidence in this dispute is circumstantial at best, irrelevant or just hurdy-gurdy side-bar ostentation.
Chain of Evidence
Another point that is buried under all the fallacious forensic audio and hair studies is a total disregard for the Chain of Evidence. There is an air of certainty offered as a futile attempt to convince the reader that the evidence used to prop up this charade has not been tampered with maliciously or negligently. We are told that hair samples came from a variety of sources and that machines can make better sense out of sounds than humans can. We are expected to just simply trust that each piece of evidence is true, accurate, and not subject to the possibility of tampering or human error. But why should we? It has already been demonstrated how incompetent and unreliable people are who are doing all they can to tell this tale of woe and intrigue.
It is also possible that someone was given a lock of hair which they were told came from Srila Prabhupada, perhaps just to inspire them, when maybe it did not? In one of the case, we are told the hair came from a woman. It’s unlikely any woman would have been present when Srila Prabhupada was being groomed, so that right there makes whatever hair they may have questionable. We have no way of being sure that the clippings of Srila Prabhupada’s hair, which were supposedly tested, were not contaminated by outside or even unseen forces. The fact that the hair samples, which changed hands many times, were not stored in a clean, controlled environment and could have even been stolen and replaced with other hairs by a zealot disciple, are all possible. Just because clippers were used to cut Srila Prabhupada’s hair, it doesn’t eliminate the possibility that someone else could have borrowed them in the mood of prasadam and then simply returned them at a later date.
Real forensic evidence would require that hair samples be taken directly from Srila Prabhupada, witnessed by two people, then immediately guarded safely in a properly controlled evidence locker where it isn’t removed unless someone is authorized to remove it, and only then they must sign a release document. That fact alone provides ample legal reason to have all the hair evidence simply tossed out as unreliable. The fact that some microscopical hair dust was tested and apparently had a reading so far beyond what medical people tell us anyone could survive, raises all sorts very difficult legal questions the poison conspirators would have to explain. How would they explain this important detail to a jury of twelve?
In the first season of the Who Poisoned Prabhupada drama, the scriptwriters felt abnormally high elevated levels of arsenic was all they needed to win the audience. Marginally high indications of arsenic might be survivable, but having it show up in Srila Prabhupada’s hair was at least somewhat plausible. However, that edition of the conspiracy theory was not adequate in convincing the skeptics that it was a poison which clogged Srila Prabhupada’s kidneys, so they changed up the game plan.
Proving Criminal Poisoning
The following is a short summary of just some of the basic evidence an attorney who wants to prove Criminal Poisoning must have before heading into a courtroom.
“Where and how the person accused of the crime got access to the poison responsible for the death: The criminal investigator must present such evidence as proof of sale of the poison, with such things as receipts or the signature on a poison register at the point of sale. Is there any original packaging, wrappers, or containers associated with the suspect? It may suffice to prove that a suspect has had access at a workplace, used toxins or poisons in his or her occupation, or had a hobby that involved the use of the poison in question. Death caused by poison: There must be sufficient, sound evidence that would induce a reasonable person to come to this conclusion. Remember that in order to prove death by poison, the presence of the poison in the systemic circulation and/ or body organs must be proven. The presence of the poison only in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract does not prove death by poisoning. The GI tract from the mouth to the anus is much like a garden hose, hollow and open at both ends, and therefore outside the topological framework of the body. Consequently, to have met its fatal potential, the poisonous compound must have been absorbed through the walls of the gut and entered the body’s systemic circulation so that it could get to the site that caused the untoward effect.” – LINK: Criminal Poisoning Proving Poison
We can only imagine how this alleged plot could have ever got started. Keep in mind those in the law enforcement business tell us that when someone is murdered with poison, it is rarely done by any more than one very secretive assailant. It simply doesn’t require more than one person and it doesn’t make any sense for an assassin to involve anyone else. The first thing one learns in Poisoning for Dummies is that if you are going to poison someone, you don’t tell anyone else about it.
All of this is obvious and intrinsic to the clandestine nature of poison itself. That’s why it is so very difficult to get a conviction on intentional first-degree murder by poison. Anyone who makes such an accusation had better have a very clear evidence trail that points directly to the suspect, along with all the details related to exactly how they did it or the accuser could be counter sued for slander and defamation of character!
The Goof Team has produced pages of rambling could have’s, might have’s, conjectures and a lot of Wow LOOK At This, mixed up with a fantastic cloak-and-dagger type speculative junctures. It gets so ridiculous that at one point several pages are dedicated to the tale of the crooked. Slimy, (SHPM p.37) mind-reading (SHPM p. 36) dirt-bag Chandra Swami. He was apparently such a reprehensible character that he eventually landed in India’s Tihar Central Jail with a life sentence! We are told that despite his history of nefarious dealings, he was the kaviraja for Prime Ministers Morarji Desai and Rajiv Gandhi!
Introducing the villain Chandra Swami into the plot was a brilliant addition to this script since his character is so reprehensible he provides a very convenient way for the conspiracy authors to introduce whatever criminal intrigue they need to keep the story alive. The first time we are introduced to him we learn that he was well acquainted with some of India’s biggest politicians.
“Chandra Swami somehow moved as a favorite from one leader and regime to the next, apparently playing many sides simultaneously. ..he was previously so intimate with Indira Gandhi that he could call her on the phone at any time”-SHPM p.37
Then we learn that he had a very dark side – he may have poisoned political prisoners!
“…Later it was thought he may have been involved with the mysterious prison poisonings where “kidney disease” became a common ailment. Srila Prabhupada was purported to also have the same kind of kidney disease…”-SHPM p.37
…And that he had been corrupt long before Srila Prabhupada left us…
“Considering his complex history of shady dealings, Chandra Swami was probably never an honest Ayurvedic physician who supposedly only went crooked after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance,..” -SHPM p.37
…And considering how much of a criminal he was, his relationship with Indira Gandhi, his ability to produce makharadhvaja (the same type of ayurvedic medicine Srila Prabhupada was taking), he could have tainted it with poison!
“Considering his rap sheet today, it is not far-fetched to wonder what the Indira Gandhi/ Chandra Swami/ makharadhvaja/ Srila Prabhupada poisoning connection might be. Not only may the makharadhvaja from Chandra Swami have been “tainted,” but he may have supplied poison for use against Srila Prabhupada.” -SHPM p.37
We are all led to believe all of this is very feasible because Chandra Swami allegedly worked with political assassins that killed Rajiv Gandhi.
“Controversial religious guru Chandraswamy had links with the alleged assassins of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and had planned to help them escape from India after the killing, OUTLOOK magazine quoted a key witness as saying last week.” -SHPM p.38
…and he sent 48 doses of makharadhvaja that was administered to Srila Prabhupada by Tamal Krishna Goswami and Bhakticharu!
“On Oct. 25, a kaviraja from Delhi, through Chandra Swami, sends 48 doses of makharadhvajabrought by Satadhanya. Tamal Krishna and Bhakticharu take charge of administering this medicine.” -SHPM p.50
Later the above information was summarized by those accused of poisoning Prabhupada as an attempt…
“…to insinuate all kinds of unsubstantiated facts regarding the ‘connection’ with Chandra Swami. These include the idea that Chandra Swami was acting as an agent for Indira Gandhi, and that he tried to poison Srila Prabhupada on her behalf.”-KGBG p.353
This is where things start getting extremely weird. I am content to let the reader come to their own conclusion regarding why we were introduced to 
Chandra Swami. Based on the quotes authored by the writers of the poison conspiracy, it seems pretty clear that they are insinuating: because Chandra Swami was an experienced assassin, intimate with Indira Gandhi, and a likely suspect for supplying tainted makharadhvaja to Srila Prabhupada, it is not far-fetched to wonder what the connection might be between all these facts. Who could possibly disagree with this summary?
Surprise! Oops again. The people who disagree with this summary are none other than the very people who wrote it! Not only do they claim this is a preposterous conclusion, they explode with the following supercilious assault on those who interpret it in that way!
“…there is absolutely no inference that Indira Gandhi used Chandra Swami to poison Srila Prabhupada. NTIAPhad totally gone overboard with an outright LIE. We never even hinted at that. This is the most dishonest, deceptive tactic – to accuse someone of something they did not do or say as a way to discredit everything else they stand for.Liar, liar, pants on fire…!”– KGBG p. 353
Download the full book (PDF) at this link.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.