LETTERS TO THE VOID #8

Posted July 19 2004

 

3/2/04

(1) Praharana dd (GBC Deputy) writes:

>>Prabhu, what I was hoping that you would send me is a list of exactly what investigations you want done!<<

BIF writes:

This can only be done after the GBC has agreed to reopen the investigation, and an accredited agency is assigned to the task.  It is then and then only that this question bears relevance.  Otherwise we are being asked to hand over our dossier to the suspects for evaluation.  Even though the GBC may want others to think so.....we are not nuts.

>>Please give me a specific list of exactly what your group wants done.... ie: 1) interview ... Swami with a lie dectector machine and ask these specific questions 2) find other hiar samples and have analysis done...I need to give them a list of SPECIFIC things to do...<<

We don't want the Deputies or GBC to do anything other than table/discuss the issue. It would be enough for Prahanara Mata, to simply request, along with others, a full investigation into the evidence supporting a fatal poisoning.  If she wants to know what questions need to be asked, then she will need to ask the investigators, after the agency is appointed.  Our questions to BCS and JPS have already been asked, she received copies of these letters, and they are visible on the Front Page of www.B-I-F.com .  Furthermore, our requests to do VSA, Polygraph Tests, and obtain Statutory Declarations from the suspects are in black and white in our book- JFY.  What other specifics does she need?  We are not prepared to hand the dossier over to her or anybody else, other than a professional/designated agency. A FULL INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT BY AN ACCREDITED AGENCY, and that is all that needs to be considered, minus the ex cathedra.  

>>This presentation will not do much but make people angry.<<

We fail to see the logic in this, the 'presentation' is not provocative.  If Pdd wants the GBC Deputies to be 'happy', it cannot be done at our expense, that's for sure.  Besides, I don't know about you Prabhus, but I am tired of appeasing these demi-gods with sacrifice.  We have treated all enquiries with the utmost concern (except for a few drivellers), it is the best we can do.  If they still don't accept what they have done/are doing is wrong, then we must seek recourse in secular officialdom, minus the ex cathedra. YS

 

(2) Praharana dd (Deputy GBC) writes:

22/3/04

>>Please do not forward this E mail... between you and me only!!

BIF writes:

Why the need for secrecy?  What is being said here that needs hiding, and from whom?  Last month you wanted to know exactly what needed doing.  Now, after meeting with the GBC, you have become secretive.  So what is it that has turned you into a secret agent.  And when we read your previous letter, there is need to question- whose agent are you? 

 

>>A committee was struck at the meetings to discuss the Poison Issue. Krishnadas Kaviraja was part of that group.<<

 

Krishnadas Kaviraja (Kk) is manifesting the same secretive symptoms as yourself.  Prior to the meetings he was openly calling for an independent investigation (Letters to the Void #1), but now he has merged with the secret agents.   

 

>>I gave him a photocopy of your communications with me so he had all the information.<<

There has been no response from the GBC, privately or publicly.  So what did Kk do with all the information?  But more importantly, why has he suddenly become silent?  How and where did he lose his belief in an "independent investigation"?  He has joined the GBC in decisions to closet the information, as they did two decades ago, without making the facts known to law enforcement? 

 

>>They seriously discussed the issue. I know that there was a decision that if there is legally admissible new evidence, that the investigation could be reopened... but I'm not sure of the details of that.<<

 

Legally admissible to whom, the GBC?  Who among them is LEGALLY qualified?  They have never commissioned a professional investigation, why are they seeking NEW evidence?  They are the ones who bear investigating. We have already presented audio forensic and NAA results showing that Srila Prabhupada may have been poisoned by disciples (some are members of the GBC) for profit.  We have also presented reports from scientists advising that a full-scale criminal investigation be carried out.  Instead of acting on this advice, the suspects published a book of lies to negate the prima facie evidence, and then had their GBC cronies endorse it as the most detailed and comprehensive exposition of these allegations to date.   The GBC is benefically involved, ergo their judgement is legaly irrelevent due to a conflict of interest.  Besides, as mentioned before, they are unqualified to pass judgement on capital crime.  Asking the GBC for their judgement on the evidence is like asking a fence to finger the filcher. 

 

>>There was a lot of concern that if investigators or Indian police got involved, that they might mandate that Srila Prabhupada be exhumed<<

So if investigators or Indian police don't get involved, and the GBC has already decided there was no murder, nobody is going to investigate the evidence.  Is this what they want?  Yes! Definetely! We have no doubt that the GBC dreads the involvement of professional investigators.  Why would they fear an exhumation if there was no evidence?  They know as well as we do that the Indian Government is not stupid; they will never issue an exhumation order, willy-nilly.  Anyway, we understand that the "exhumation" is being used by the suspects as a ruse to foster fear and protect the suspects from due process, which will conclude the case without any need for an exhumation.  There can be no doubt that the GBC want the truth stifled, regardless of the evidence. 

>>Apparently the Australian group of devotees who are most adamant about pursuing this poison issue, have told people that this might be necessary ...<<

 

Which people? Where? Who? When?  We are tick-to-the-teeth with this bogus GBC junta.  They will say anything, just like in their lying book-  Not That Iam Poisoned. 

>>although they are not admitting this openly...<<

 

If the Australian group 'have told people', then they must be 'admitting this openly'.  So who have they told that an exhumation is necessary?  If the truth be told, only the BIF team stands convinced that an exhumation is not necessary.  We have repeated this to anyone who cares to listen.  The exhumation propaganda is being used to shield the suspects from exposure to professional, legal and scientific procedure, that is all.

>>...so there was big concern about that.  There was a distinction made between the Austrian (sic) group... who many people have very little respect for and the "other devotees" including yourself. <<

We don't care for so called respect that demands compromise.   Anyway, the only ones having problems with our Australian members are the embattled GBC, and Tirtha Raj das (TKG) Australia), the publisher of- Not That I am Poisoned.  The reason for this, we are informed by our Australian agents, is that BIF (Australia) exposed a certain ISKCON leader for his pornographic interests.  This influential leader is the cause of propaganda associated with BIF's "little respect" in Australia.  Anyhow, if the GBC can produce the names of those whom BIF supposedly told that an exhumation was necessary, we will be most grateful.  Our guarantee is that they cannot do so, because, as they often do, the GBC is using propaganda to manipulate rank-and-file.  Libel may travel well within the cult, but in reality, only truth matters. 

>>Your name was actually mentioned at the GBC meeting.  They said you are a gentleman, well-meaning and very loyal to Prabhupada. I think Ravindra Svarupa said that actually. They had nothing good to say about these other people however.<<

Actually, the entire BIF team is gentlemanly, well-meaning and very loyal to Prabhupada... compared to the GBC. 

If the GBC don't agree with this, we would be interested to know why not.  Is there something illegal our members have done that the GBC know about, and can prove?  The truth is, not a single member of the BIF team is in breach of any law or civil code.  The GBC, on the other hand, is inundated with legal breaches and retribution. 

 

>>You can ask Krishnadas more if you like. I wasn't in that committee.<<

You ask us to ask Krishnadas, we will show later that he also seems to have merged into the void when confronted with the need to disclose information about the meetings.  Like you, he natters on about matters that are irrelevant to the proposals and resolutions discussed at the GBC meetings.

>>There was a lot of talk about Unity in Diversity and how we have to learn to accept that there will be many ways of thinking within the Vaishnava community. <<

We have always known about ISKCON's leadership Unity, which upholds zero tolerance for any Diversity in opinion.  A hole-in-the-wall gang who eliminate universal laws in support of dictatorial rights.  But where is the explanation for why the evidence and forensic reports should not be legally investigated?  And where is the clarification for why the GBC published and endorsed a book of lies and suspect testimonies that conflict with documented evidence?  

>>It was a nice open conversation and everyone agreed that humility and service attitude are the most essential things to push on Srila PRabhupada's movement.<<

So we also want a nice OPEN dialogue, in humility and service.  We see these as essential  in pushing on Srila Prabhupada's movement, but not at the expense of hiding his killers under a need for corporate continuum, and under the guise of progress. 

>>Anyway, I know you don't trust or like any of these devotees, but I found that there is a real change of attitude and that there was a lot of good will, tolerance and Krishna consciousness.<<

Although you appear friendly, friendship is hardly a criteria for belief or disbelief in any capital crime.  You, like your confederates, have never offered any logical conclusion for your belief that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned.  Simply saying- "I just don't believe it" just isn't enough.  We find this methodology of accertainment to be self-centered; good for the provender and position of those who use it.  Here is what you wrote- I also don't really beleive (sic) that anyone poisoned Srila Prabhupada...[...]...but I just don't beleive it.  You have contracted a GBC folly which presumes that everything you believe is gospel.

>>there were thousands of devotees, fabulous prasadam... very caring and loving attitude towards all the devotees. I really don't know how they did it.I felt like a queen being served hand and foot... a little embarassing actually. I'm not used to it. Anyway it was a wonderful festival. Pdd<<

As long as you are being waited on hand and foot, like a queen, your position is no different to that of the royal GBC.  From a perspective of kings and queens, we are no more than rabble peasants who threaten the status quo.  Now that you are a member of the royal circle, your association with us, like any other member of the GBC, could be no more than procrastination, at best. YS

 

(3) Krishnadas Kaviraja das (GBC-Deputy) writes:

30/3/04

>>...[...]...As for the GBC proposal, I failed to note the exact wording, thinking that it would be published soon.<<

BIF writes:

You 'failed to note the exact wording' of a proposal with which you were directly involved, concerning a fatal poisoning?  This is very strange, don't you think?  Praharana dd wrote-I know that there was a decision ... but I'm not sure of the details of that...[...]...You can ask Krishnadas more if you like.   Now you have also failed to note the exact wording.  Seems like the transcendental GBC meetings at Mayapur caused some damage to the brain and its perceptive abilities. 

>>It will probably be coming out soon.<<

No.  In retrospect, nothing was ever published.  So this procrastination is nothing more than par for the course: a GBC ploy to keep the poisoning out of public view and away from membership attention.  The language you use brings your own involvement into question- will probably be coming out soon, is an ambiguous statement.

>>It does state that the resolution accepting the NTIP does not close the investigation and the new resolution states that the GBC are open to receiving any new evidence that is credible.<<

We have shown that the GBC book- NTIP, was paid for, published and endorsed by suspects and their cronies.  Still the GBC persists that the book is enough reason to discard evidence that has never been assessed by secular / neutral / unbiased / professional/ legal investigators.  May we draw your attention to an earlier post in which you wrote to the GBC Chairman- ...but the fact remains that it was very poorly dealt with by the GBC...[...]...I know that an investigation will hurt some devotees, but if a house is built on a shaky foundation then it is often necessary to destroy part of the house to repair the foundation. An independent investigation would go a long way to re-establishing trust in the GBC from members of our ISKCON who have been marginalized by the past actions of the GBC and other devotees (Letters to the Void #1).  Now, after your 'meetings' with the GBC, you change colour like a chameleon.  

>>After reading the JFY and hearing the CD, I judged.....<<

YOU JUDGED!?  Two sentences ago you 'failed to note the exact wording' of a proposal / resolution with which you were directly involved, concerning a fatal poisoning, and now you claim the status of a JUDGE? 

>>....that this is the same evidence that has been presented before.<<

So we can, at least, agree that evidence* was presented.  The GBC contends that the evidence presented is "the same evidence" ergo insufficient.  Our contention is that the evidence presented was /is not for GBC evaluation, but for assessment by legal professionals who have no vested interest in the outcome of an inquiry, only in its conclusion. Also, since the GBC inherited the office and assets of the deceased, the fiduciary obligation for carrying out a full and professional investigation into his poisoning, lies with them.  Failure to comply with this basic desideratum gives rise to suspicions regarding the "guru appointment"; already a matter of serious contention, which may have its origins in- murder for profit.

*Evidence:  1) information that gives grounds for belief2) Testimony used in a court of law.

>>I see this as a monumental misinterpretation of what went on.<<

Try to understand that what you SEE, or your GBC superiors SEE in connection with this crime, is not worth a fig to anyone but the GBC dictatorship.  This is a fatal poisoning.  We are not playing Simon Says.  Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned; he said a Ravana would kill him if he didn't get away; all the disciples who were there, including the kaviraja, accepted what he said without contradiction; forensic scientists have confirmed the poisoning and "poison whispers", which reveal a conspiracy to murder.  They have advised that a professional investigation be undertaken.  So why do we need to hear the rumbles of your belly and leadership cravings? 

NTIP was a monumental misinterpretation of what went on.  We have shown this without any argument from its authors, publishers, or financiers.  Yet you seem to have missed the point.  To the contrary, you support this cheating, lying publication, and advocate it as reason for the GBC not to commission a secular investigation.  

>>Throughout these recordings i sensed a very loving relationship between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples.<<

Where?  In what recordings?  Are you referring to the same, single, solitary line spoken to Krishna Das Babaji-  "Just see how they love me", which has been flogged to death by the GBC in an attempt to erase the plaint of His Divine Grace, and the acceptance and admittance of the poisoning by all the devotees present at his bedside?  Besides the six words already mentioned, can you give us one more "sensed" example to prove this loving relationship nonsense?  

Prabhupada called them Ravanas; Tamal said he could have poisoned him if he wanted to and; the evidence says he probably did.  Yet all this has missed your "sensing" ability, ergo we don't need any GBC "channellers".  We simply need to deal with the facts.  Let the secular world bring the evidence to light, because this poor excuse for a Governing Body never will. 

>>The whispers are not conclusive of anything, they are barely decipherable.<<

But that is the function of a whisper.  It is barely decipherable to others because the whisperer does not want others to decipher it. Duh?  So if there is need to interpret the sound for identification / meaning, the whispers (if taped, as they were) must be amplified, denoised, and decoded in terms of vocal patterns, wavelengths and energy, via spectrographic analysis.  This is a recognised science called- Audio Forensics.  We have three separate audio forensic reports attesting to the word 'poison' being whispered on 'several occasions' at the bedside of a patient (who also heard them) who believed he had been poisoned, and whose scientifically analysed hair relics fully support that belief.  Even though the scientific conclusions have been presented in the JFY report, your hairy-eared friends at the GBC still insist- it's their ears or nothing.  

>>After hearing the recordings where Bhakticaru Maharaja asks Srila Prabhupada what his mental distress is. Srila Prabhupada replies "That talk, that someone has poisoned me." It seems to me....<<

No one gives a squat how it SEEMS to YOU.  You failed to note words of a proposal put forward by you, yourself; you cannot even remember the resolution passed by your GBC junta, you say you cannot hear the whispers therefore you believe that Srila Prabhupada was a liar, and you will not accept scientific proof that backs him up.  For all practical purposes, you may as well be brain-dead. 

>>....that Srila Prabhupada was distressed by the talk that someone had poisoned him and wanted it to stop.<<

For the umpteenth time-  Srila Prabhupada was the one who first raised the subject of his poisoning.  He was the one who first said..."Someone said that somebody has poisoned me....IT IS POSSIBLE".  When asked who had told him, he said, " ALL THESE FRIENDS".  So why would he raise the subject and then expect others to stop discussing it?  No, he did not want it to stop, he wanted it to be investigated.  But if you insist in this GBC propagated idiocy, then you must explain to us who among your buddies distressed Srila Prabhupada by the talk that someone had poisoned him -  If you want us to believe you, then you should identify those who told Srila Prabhupada that someone had poisoned him.  There were only a few in the room at the time, but none have come forward to say- "It was us guys who informed Prabhupada that he was being poisoned, because WE SAW this...HEARD this...KNEW this...."  So maybe you can use your "channelling" ability to bring this matter to light? 

>>At the time it seems that none of the devotees properly understood this statement by Srila Prabhupada. Anyway that is my humble opinion.<<

You also seem to have problems with differentiating between a humble opinion and a statement bordering on complicity.  Because what you are attempting to establish here is that Tamal, Bhakti Caru, Jayapataka, Bhavananda, et al. misunderstood then what you understand now.  You seem to forget in your exuberance to defend, what changed your initial stance: these guys are the sastric drip-line to post Prabhupada ISKCON and,...your life-support system.

>>...[...]...<<

Your servant,
Krsnadasa Kaviraja dasa

YS

BIF

Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force