an emotional upsurge beyond human control and beyond rationality . . . Though no conclusive evidence to that effect can be obtained from photographs and other limited facts, an intensive probe in that direction is certainly warranted.
And:
The common/similar nature and dimensions of the injuries inflicted on both the deceased establish the common origin of their assassin(s). This similarity also goes to
prove
[emphasis added] that they were the victims of similar anger or grievance against them.
And:
. . . Those keenly interested in the virtuosity and honour of Ms Aarushi and the Talwar family could be behind this incident that appears to have its roots somewhere in an improper/immoral conduct of either or both the deceased.
Dahiya made other striking claims. He had been provided photographs of Aarushi’s room, on the basis of which he notes with supreme confidence that ‘two distinct impact splatters on the wall behind the headrest of Ms Aarushi also goes to
prove
[emphasis added] the contention of Mr Hemraj having been caused head injuries in the room of Aarushi itself’. (‘Impact splatter’ is a term of bloodstain pattern analysis. Here Dahiya is saying he saw two distinct patterns of blood splatter on the wall and his conclusion is that the splatters arise from two different people.)
A serious contradiction naturally followed. Dahiya was at pains to explain how the culprits had wiped all bloodstains and chance fingerprints, utilizing the ‘well-lit’ conditions inside the house. Somehow, though, they had forgotten the blood splattered on the bedroom wall. And somehow, no trace of Hemraj’s blood was found when forensic labs tested samples of it.
Hemraj and Aarushi were murdered in the same room, on the same bed, according to Dahiya, but the murderers were able to wipe all traces of the servant’s blood from the room while leaving untouched all of Aarushi’s. Science will have some trouble explaining this feat, and Dahiya offers no help.
The fact is that Hemraj’s blood/DNA/semen or traces of any other biological fluid were never found in Aarushi’s room—and dozens of forensic samples were collected. Those who offered the simple explanation that no such evidence was found perhaps because it wasn’t there, possibly because Hemraj wasn’t killed in Aarushi’s room, were dismissed as being biased or irrational. It was far more plausible that the murderers distinguished between blood groups and wiped one set clean—after all they were doctors.
***
As any student of science knows, a really small change in initial conditions can lead to colossal divergences in results. In this case, the premise Dr Dahiya relied on was false. His starting point was the ‘fact’ that Hemraj’s blood was found in Aarushi’s room.
From there, sitting in his office in Gujarat, he dreamt up the scenario that read like a judgement rather than a ‘crime scene analysis’, Document 79’s actual title.
The ‘fact’ that Hemraj’s blood was found in Aarushi’s room can be traced to an error in a 2008 letter written by a CBI SP called Dhankar, which listed the seizures of items from Aarushi’s and Hemraj’s rooms. Dhankar included a bloodstained pillow cover and pillow belonging to Hemraj as recovered from the teenager’s room whereas these items were actually recovered from Hemraj’s room, not Aarushi’s.
A year after Dahiya’s analysis, this error was corrected thrice: the CBI’s closure report said no blood of Hemraj was found in Aarushi’s room; in a submission to the Supreme Court, the agency specifically mentioned that the two items were seized from Hemraj’s room; and in court, the original tag attached to the pillow cover was displayed.
In his analysis, Dahiya takes off from the point where Hemraj is in Aarushi’s room at a clearly inappropriate time: around midnight. ‘It has been attempted to be projected that Mr Hemraj was assaulted and killed on the rooftop,’ he writes.
And:
The common/similar nature and dimensions of the injuries inflicted on both the deceased establish the common origin of their assassin(s). This similarity also goes to
prove
[emphasis added] that they were the victims of similar anger or grievance against them.
And:
. . . Those keenly interested in the virtuosity and honour of Ms Aarushi and the Talwar family could be behind this incident that appears to have its roots somewhere in an improper/immoral conduct of either or both the deceased.
Dahiya made other striking claims. He had been provided photographs of Aarushi’s room, on the basis of which he notes with supreme confidence that ‘two distinct impact splatters on the wall behind the headrest of Ms Aarushi also goes to
prove
[emphasis added] the contention of Mr Hemraj having been caused head injuries in the room of Aarushi itself’. (‘Impact splatter’ is a term of bloodstain pattern analysis. Here Dahiya is saying he saw two distinct patterns of blood splatter on the wall and his conclusion is that the splatters arise from two different people.)
A serious contradiction naturally followed. Dahiya was at pains to explain how the culprits had wiped all bloodstains and chance fingerprints, utilizing the ‘well-lit’ conditions inside the house. Somehow, though, they had forgotten the blood splattered on the bedroom wall. And somehow, no trace of Hemraj’s blood was found when forensic labs tested samples of it.
Hemraj and Aarushi were murdered in the same room, on the same bed, according to Dahiya, but the murderers were able to wipe all traces of the servant’s blood from the room while leaving untouched all of Aarushi’s. Science will have some trouble explaining this feat, and Dahiya offers no help.
The fact is that Hemraj’s blood/DNA/semen or traces of any other biological fluid were never found in Aarushi’s room—and dozens of forensic samples were collected. Those who offered the simple explanation that no such evidence was found perhaps because it wasn’t there, possibly because Hemraj wasn’t killed in Aarushi’s room, were dismissed as being biased or irrational. It was far more plausible that the murderers distinguished between blood groups and wiped one set clean—after all they were doctors.
***
As any student of science knows, a really small change in initial conditions can lead to colossal divergences in results. In this case, the premise Dr Dahiya relied on was false. His starting point was the ‘fact’ that Hemraj’s blood was found in Aarushi’s room.
From there, sitting in his office in Gujarat, he dreamt up the scenario that read like a judgement rather than a ‘crime scene analysis’, Document 79’s actual title.
The ‘fact’ that Hemraj’s blood was found in Aarushi’s room can be traced to an error in a 2008 letter written by a CBI SP called Dhankar, which listed the seizures of items from Aarushi’s and Hemraj’s rooms. Dhankar included a bloodstained pillow cover and pillow belonging to Hemraj as recovered from the teenager’s room whereas these items were actually recovered from Hemraj’s room, not Aarushi’s.
A year after Dahiya’s analysis, this error was corrected thrice: the CBI’s closure report said no blood of Hemraj was found in Aarushi’s room; in a submission to the Supreme Court, the agency specifically mentioned that the two items were seized from Hemraj’s room; and in court, the original tag attached to the pillow cover was displayed.
In his analysis, Dahiya takes off from the point where Hemraj is in Aarushi’s room at a clearly inappropriate time: around midnight. ‘It has been attempted to be projected that Mr Hemraj was assaulted and killed on the rooftop,’ he writes.
Similar Books
