Posted June 30 2004


Praghosa das, Chairman- Governing Body Commission (GBC), writes:
>It seems to me that on the one hand you have the GBC who are of the firm opinion that there is nothing to the poison issue and that they have investigated this issue sufficiently.<
BIF. writes:
We are aware of the GBC's claim to have "investigated this issue sufficiently".  The GBC stated: 618 [Statement] It is resolveed that 1) There is no evidence at this time to support the allegations of poisoning of Srila Prabhupada.  This conclusion is based on two independent reports commissioned by the GBC Body.
However, BIF researched the GBC statement and found it to be inaccurate in that there never was a single complete investigation undertaken, what to speak of two.  The only attempted investigation by a legal authority was done by Balavanta das, aka. William Ogle (a lawyer).  He reported publicly that his work could not be completed due to a cessation of funding by the GBC.  Here it is: 
Balavanta Das (In his report to the GBC): " He (Dr. Morris) was prepared to perform these tests when he was contacted by a Mr. Hooper (a.k.a. Deva Gaura Hari, author of the GBC book "Not That I am Poisoned�) who indicated that he was also working on the investigation. Mr. Hooper was not working with me and I do not know him or his role in your investigation. Following this contact, Dr. Morris decided to assess a substantial charge for his continuing efforts. I contacted you (Bir Krsna. Former Chairman GBC) to ask for the funds to complete the study, but they have not been forthcoming."  (VNN-5589. 2/3/00).
If Praghosa das read our report (Judge For Yourself) he would be better informed, and not simply re-hash GBC fiction.
>On the other hand you have some devotees who are still of the opinion that not enough has been done to date to establish a loophole free conclusion that would satisfy everyone.<
Why talk of a 'loophole free conclusion' when no investigation has been completed in the first place?  Instead of spouting nonsense, why doesn't the GBC show us the conclusions of a legitimate inquiry i.e. sworn affidavits, polygraph tests, cross-examinations, completed forensic analysis, etc., under the letterhead of a legally designated agency?  This is due process wherein there is no conflict of interests; law beyond the rule of cult.
>I and (sic) not inclined to be the driving force behind it and would suggest that you make a formal proposal in this regard and then the GBC body can seriously consider it.<
There is no inclination being shown by the GBC, no matter how or what we propose.  All we get are these personal, useless opinions.  The GBC, as a body, has not corresponded with us directly or shown any honesty in accepting this issue as legal/due process.  There is no question of putting forward a "formal proposal" when the GBC refuses to hear anything except what pleases them.  We have tried as best we can to bring matters of impropriety to their attention.  They in turn pretend indifference, and in so doing, attemp to negate the import of the plaint.  Our choices have narrowed down to secular involvement through methods that could be destructive to corporate ISKCON.  In spite of our repeated warnings, there appears to be no acceptance by the GBC of the implications.  The position now is not whether the GBC will 'seriously consider' our proposal, but whether they have seriously envisioned the alternatives.
>If this were not to pass then the concerned devotees that you have mentioned could still initiate their own investigation.<
Fiduciary obligation lies with the GBC, not with individuals.  It is blatantly obvious to all concerned that the GBC shirking responsibility in a most grievous manner.  Should individuals be forced to carry onus and expense because of GBC negligence, the ISKCON leadership must consider litigation to be a possibility in process.  
>If that investigation were to unearth something new and conclusive that would support the poison theory, then the GBC would have little option but to re-open the whole issue again.<
No! Either the GBC performs the obligatory desiderata, or not.  It cannot be expected that others do the hard yards while the god-almighty-GBC sits with its hands in their pockets.  BIF has offered the GBC a chance to work conjointly, free of cost, in bringing this issue to a close.  To this point we have received no answer, and hereupon we seek no collaboration with them. 
Balavanta Das laboured many thankless hours for free, when commissioned by the GBC, but when his investigation revealed 2. 6 ppm  arsenic in Srila Prabhupada's hair relics, the GBC terminated his commission. However, when an individual/group takes on the work because of the leadership's failure to meet its obligations, administration must be made aware of the expenses involved, and the possibilities of legal damages in the aftermath. YS

Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force