GM’s Response No.1 : Premanand is trying to speak around the issue by introducing irrelevant subject material.

Reply to GM's Response No. 1 : GM is the person who introduces irrelevant material on almost every count, throughout his website. Yet I demonstrate the relevance of all my subject material below.


GM's Response cont.: Regarding Radhakrishna's inquest (describing his clothes) the following was stated, "White shirt with full of blood, shirt cut by the hospital people 2) white terry cotton trousers with white belt on it. Torn on back side of the right knee portion, 3) White banian full of blood. It was cut and opened. 4) White cut drawer with elastic, which has letter "CLUB". There is a label with same letter, 5) Biscuit coloured napkin with border on four sides, with full of blood. All the above mentioned clothes are seized." Regarding Sai Kumar Mahajan's inquest (describing his clothes) the following was stated, "Hospital people have covered the dead body with white cloth. There were no ornaments when observed the clothes of "pothi" removed and preserved by the Hospital authorities was found, 1) White cotton shirt full with blood smears, label on color reads "Mello Fashion". On right side below, shirt is torn. 2) White pyjama, with elastic at waist. Label inside reads "Mezzo" and is with blood stains. 3) White elastic cut drawer with blood stains All these things were seized." Premanand is wrong when he said that blood was not found on the pants of Sai Kumar Mahajan. Blood was found on Sai Kumar Mahajan's pants.
Neither the inquests or the post mortem certificates make any mention to poisoning. Not even one word. Premanand assumed that since potassium cyanide was found on the premise, it was used. There were also explosive components found on the premise that were never used. Premanand is making non-educated guesses.
Premanand wants me to "play-pretend" with him, and imagine I am a forensic expert (that he pretends to be). Just because the inquest failed to specifically say that Radhakrishna's pants had blood on them, does not mean they had no blood on them. What is strange about all this is that Premanand believes the inquest times given for Radhakrisha and Mahajan's deaths, however, believes that these two were not stabbed at the mandir, but at the hospital itself! I will go more in-depth about this under my time-line section.

Reply to GM’s Response No.1 :  First of all I am not duty bound to reply to GM’s accusations against me. The purpose of my replying to his ‘Basava Premanand : Deception’ articles (twice) was to collect proof as to how far he would go in his accusations I have collected enough materials to prove that his comments, accusations and response were not to find the truth but by hook or crook to absolve Sathya Sai Baba. I firstly thought GM really wanted to know my reply to his comments. Check GM’s comments and responses on all my articles and find who is introducing irrelevant subjects not specifically connected with each article, distracting from the fact his not been able to document his allegations or prove his accusations against me. Again he falsely and knowingly implies that I am not educated (by “non-educated guesses”) while I have shown how he constantly makes mere guesses and demonstrates frequent ignorance of straightforward matters.

I have not disputed that the Inquest Report is not genuine, as the copy was got from the court. I dispute GMs speculations - what the Inquest Report on Sai Kumar Mahajan is:
1)      “White cotton full shirt with blood smears; on right side below shirt is torn
2) white pyjama is with blood stains
3) drawer with blood stain”.
With all the stab injuries does GM mean to say there were only blood stains or blood smears? Find out the differences between ‘blood smears’, ‘blood stains’ and ‘full with blood’. Within three hours of death only smears and stains? While Radhakrishna’s shirt was full of blood?

The Inquest report and Post Mortem Certificates will not mention about poisoning. The explosives were not found before the murder when, as per protocol, the police had to fully search the Prasanthi Nilayam premises as political VIP’s were visiting.

The explosives were not found even in the 1^st search on June 7^th, but later. GM’s interpretation that “the inquest failed to specifically say that Radhakrishna’s pants had blood on them does not mean they had no blood on them”. GM’s logic here is of the sort “if a half closed door is half open, then a fully closed door is fully open” applies here.
The white shirt and banian were full of blood; the trouser did not have even blood smears or blood stains.
The death time given in the inquest report is the time given by the Super Speciality Hospital. Read No.III (Vol. Page 342)

GM’s Response No. 2 : At: http://exbaba.com/articles/whomurdered.html Premanand said, "As the stab injury of the two Sai Baba aides murdered are not anti-mortem they would have died of Potassium Cyanide poisoning administered by the cook and the other aide i.e., Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley. Moreover this would have been done in secrecy and the bodies sent to the Super Specialty Hospital to be cremated in the Electric Crematorium so that they disappear from earth. This is confirmed by the fact that the alarm system was activated only at 10:30 PM and not earlier when the 4 injured aides were taken to the hospital."
If you are confused about what Premanand said about the "electric crematorium", you have every reason to be confused. Premanand just said that he did not say that Radhakrishna or Mahajan were cremated in an "electric crematorium". However, Premanand did say (about Radhakrishna and Mahajan), as mentioned earlier, "Moreover this would have been done in secrecy and the bodies sent to the Super Specialty Hospital to be cremated in the Electric Crematorium so that they disappear from earth." What? None of the bodies "disappeared".
I will address Premanand's time line under the appropriate section on this page.

Reply to GM's Response No.2 : GM has quoted the materials published in Murders in Sai Baba’s bed Room (Vol II page 398 last para and Page 399 1^st para). Here also it is his interpretation that is questioned and the logic he uses “if it is this, that also is this, if it is not this that also is not this”. The two statements are quite different and he has not been able to prove anything by his interpretation and logic. “This would have been” does not mean that “this had been”, except in GM’s twisting misinterpretation.

What GM has stated is from the website he has quoted. I did not state that they were cremated in the electric crematorium. “To be cremated” does not mean the same as “(was) cremated”. “And when the alarm system was activated it had to be stopped. Except for GM and Sathya Sai Baba’s devotees, no one would be confused about this.

GM’s Response No. 3 : Premanand is wrong on all counts. There is no account as to when Radhakrishna left. The only reference to time was 7 pm. Sathya Sai Baba explained why Radhakrishna offered him buttermilk. Sathya Sai Baba said nothing about the buttermilk being poisoned. Nor did Sathya Sai Baba say anything about Sai Kumar Mahajan being in his bedroom. As a matter of fact, Sathya Sai Baba said the following (Click Here):"Both of us took our meals at 7 PM, Radhakrishna was sitting in the ground floor. Swami told him; "Radhakrishna, Let us go upstairs. Don't sit here." "Swami, if I go there, I cannot get sleep at 7 O'clock itself," said Radhakrishna. Swami asked him, "If you cannot sleep, what are you going to do here? You can do upstairs what you intend to do here. I don't ask you to go to sleep. Get up immediately. Come, Come" I insisted repeatedly.
See how things happen. Death overtakes one, in whatever way you attempt to circumvent it. At last Swami assumed an angry tone and rebuked him, "You misfortune; you stubborn." I pretended as if I was very angry with him. He felt pained. Swami retired upstairs. He reflected for some time. He had been with Swami for 22 years. He knew that whatever I said was for his good. He went to the kitchen and brought a tumbler of buttermilk. He came smilingly. "Swami you have been angry with me. Please drink this buttermilk and calm down." "Radhakrishna, it is not anger, I have said everything for your good," said Swami. Radhakrishna said, "Swami has perhaps some doubts that I may go out somewhere and talk to others." I replied, "If have such doubts, I will keep you with Me? Not at all. There are no doubts. I am saying this for your good." And then I said, "I am not used to drinking buttermilk at night. Why have you brought it for the first time tonight?" He replied; "I felt like giving buttermilk to Swami tonight and hence I brought it." It is good that you got this idea. I shall take it, but, on one condition; I shall take the buttermilk desired by you, but you must give me your word that after going down to place the tumbler in the kitchen, you will return upstairs." He said: "I will certainly return."
I do not take buttermilk at all. I took a little quantity and told him "I have taken buttermilk to please you." He had a pure heart. He asked me, Swami, can I drink the rest of the buttermilk?" l said, "Why throw it away? You may drink it." He drank it there itself. Swami said; "But put back the tumbler and come up." He went down. He had given his word. But he had perhaps the doubt that if he remained downstairs Swami might call him. This kind of stubbornness is one of the traits of young people. They will not listen to the words of elders. If only they listen to their words, no danger will befall them. Apprehending that if he remained downstairs I might call him, he placed the tumbler in the kitchen and went to his sister's house. The messenger of death dogged him at 10 PM This is how it has happened. Whatever I say is for the good of others."
That is right, no mention to Sai Kumar Mahajan being in Sathya Sai Baba's bedroom. No mention to poison being in the buttermilk. No mention to 7:30pm. Where did Premanand get this information? This is another perfect example of Premanand's far-fetched speculations. Premanand stated something as a fact, but failed to provide relevant references.

Reply to GM’s Response No. 3 :  GM can only see me as being wrong on all counts. The question is answered in the wandering and disingenuous Guru Pournima Lecture of 3.7.1993 which avoids telling any important facts whatever. Clearly visible deception!  Sathya Sai Baba’s statement about Radhakrishna was not given immediately after the 6 murders but only after 27days. I do not dispute the authenticity of the Guru Pournima Lecture transcript, but only ask why Sathya Sai Baba kept all his inmates fully silent and did not himself come out with truth.

Let GM first find out which events took place between 7 PM until the time Radhakrishna allegedly left to his sister’s house. Why did Sathya Sai Baba say that he drank butter milk at night which he never did before? Sathya Sai Baba has not explained why Radhakrishna offered him butter milk. Sathya Sai Baba’s words are so emotional and rambling. GM can ask: ‘Did Radhakrishna go to his sister’s home, and – if so – what did Sathya Sai Baba do?’ I did not state 7pm as being a fact and I well know that the transcript of Sathya Sai Baba’s discourse gives the time 7.30 PM for when Sathya Sai Baba alleged Radhakrishna went to his sister’s house.

GM’s Response No . 4 : At: http://exbaba.com/articles/whomurdered.html Premanand said, "The cause for the murder starts with the sexual abuse of the students, the misappropriation of unaccounted funds flowing into the hands of the coterie, the financing of the coterie, changing black money into white and white to black through manipulations, murders of the devotees who see through these unlawful activities, the smuggling of the outdated weapons to the third world countries wherein the politicians profit much more than the cost which was spent by the Defense department and lastly through the smuggling of narcotics." As one can see, Premanand attributes the source to all of these illicit activities to Sathya Sai Baba's alleged sexual abuse of students! This is why I call Premanand's account a "conspiracy theory"
Click Here to view the full transcript to the 1993 Gurupurnima discourse, as published in Sanathana Sarathi. The only place where the word "poison" is mentioned (in the discourse) is in the following sentence: "Instead, if men whose hearts are filled with the poison of envy indulge in all kinds of slander from remote places, it can be described only as demonic conduct and not that of a human being." Consequently, Sathya Sai Baba never said anything (and never told a "story") about "the poison was not in the butter milk". Where Premanand got this information is anyone's guess. Considering how Premanand misunderstands my words and twists them into something they are not, Premanand more than likely did the same thing with Sathya Sai Baba's discourse. I am not claiming that Sathya Sai Baba's words are false. I am claiming that Premanand's words are false. If Premanand attributed all sorts of illicit activities to Sathya Sai Baba, and hindering the investigation into the 1993 police shootings, why is Premanand quoting Sathya Sai Baba's discourse as if Sathya Sai Baba is being truthful and honest? Again, Premanand takes segments he likes and discards segments he doesn't. Premanand is not consistent.

Reply to GM’s Response No.4 : The cause for the murder “starts with” does not mean the same as  “the source of” these illicit activities. They are quite different. (Page 402 vol 2). Another of Moreno’s calculated confusions.
Who brought the story of poison in the buttermilk? Why did Sathya Sai Baba mention drinking butter milk? I need Sathya Sai Baba’s answers and not GM’s. If Sai Kumar Mahajan was not there in Sathya Sai Baba’s bed room, how could he be stabbed as alleged in the FIR? This proves that the FIR was a concocted one and the aides were not stabbed by the alleged assailants. Then how come the stab injuries on their bodies?

About buttermilk: why  did Radhakrishna offer it to Sathya Sai Baba when he knew Sathya Sai Baba does not drink buttermilk in the night?
The next was a question: “Who stated that Sathya Sai Baba told that poison was not in the butter milk?” This is the way in which GM twists and fakes my sentences to suit his purpose. He will claim anything, but I do not accept that I quoted Sathya Sai Baba’s discourse as if Sathya Sai Baba is being truthful and honest”. Only the mentally deficient can fail to understand that some part of Sathya Sai Baba’s statements may be true (it would be hard to lie 100% in everything), just as parts are almost certainly not true. That was my standpoint.
Yet when GM writes: “Premanand takes segments he likes and discards segments he doesn't” he is overlooking that he always does just this himself.

GM’s Response No.5 : This section deals with Premanand's time line. I will discuss the time-line all at once, not in segments. Look below for my comments.

Reply to GM's Response No.5 : GM can discuss anything, it is not my concern.

GM’s Response.No.6 : This section deals with Premanand's time line. I will discuss the timeline all at once, not in segments. Look below for my comments.

Reply to GM's Response No.6 : GM can discuss anything but it is not my concern.

GM’s Response No.7 : This section deals with Premanand's time line. I will discuss the timeline all at once, not in segments. Look below for my comments.

Reply to GM's Response No.7 : GM can discuss anything but it is not my concern. Same answer to his reference No.5, 6 and 7.

GM’s Response No.8 :  References for this timeline section:
http://exbaba.com/articles/whomurdered.html - Referenced as: (Ref A)
http://exbaba.com/articles/courtrecords.html - Referenced as: (Ref B)
http://exbaba.com/articles/writpetition.html - Referenced as: (Ref C)
http://exbaba.com/articles/excerpts.html - Referenced as: (Ref D)
Let us see what Premanand accepts and what he does not:
#1) Premanand accepts that Radhakrishna and Mahajan died at 9:50pm and 9:45pm respectively, at the Super Specialty Hospital (SSH). Premanand accepts these times of death, which were taken directly from the SSH inquests.
#2) Premanand accepts the comments made in the post mortem certificates for Radhakrishna and Mahajan. Premanand questions the conclusions drawn by these post mortem certificates because the words (translated from Telugu to English) "would appear" are used, and the specific term "ante-mortem" was not written on Radhakrishna's and Mahajan's post mortem certificates (Ref A).
#3) Premanand accepts the honesty of the doctors at the Government Hospital where the post mortems were performed (Ref A: "But there were many who could not be purchased like the Judicial First Class Magistrate, the doctors of the Government Hospital, Penukonda, and many other officers of the investigation team who were truthful to themselves to let us go through the post-mortem records...")
#4) Premanand denies that Radhakrishna and Mahajan were stabbed at the mandir (Ref A).
#5) Premanand accepts that Radhakrishna and Mahajan were poisoned with potassium cyanide and accepts that they were stabbed later at the SSH (Ref A: "As the stab injury of the two Sai Baba aides murdered are not anti-mortem they would have died of Potassium Cyanide poisoning administered by the cook and the other aide i.e., Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley...The above records prove that they would have been stabbed later at the hospital, after the alarm was activated.") Premanand is not able to substantiate the claim that Radhakrishna or Mahajan were poisoned. There are no documents that support this contention. Premanand speculates that they were poisoned because potassium cyanide was found on the premise.
#6) Premanand accepts that the four assailants entered the mandir at 10:30pm and that the alarm was sounded at the same time. However, Premanand does not cite any court documents or name any eyewitnesses to support this contention. Rather, he cited newspaper clippings and the F.I.R. (Ref A & C & D: "According to eyewitness accounts soon after the alarm siren started buzzing, the MBA students, numbering around 60, were the first to barge into the Baba's living room. The students reside in a complex opposite the Baba's Mandir. These 60 students reportedly pounced on the four alleged assailants and beat them up indiscriminately--Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad 26-6-1993...Occurrences of offence Day: Sunday, Date 6-6-93, Time 10:30 PM (Vol. 1, FIR Page 336) The Hindu (Vol. 2, Page 12), The Independent (Vol. 2, Page 17), Indian Express (Vol. 2, Page 25), The Statesman (Vol. 2, Page 31), Times of India (Vol. 2, Page 36) of 8.6.1993 have stated that the 4 assailants tried to crash into the residence of Satya Sai Baba at 10:30 PM - 10:45 PM on 6-6-1993....Mathrubhumi (Vol. 1, Page 70) investigated about the telegram and found that a telegram from Chandraswamy addressed to Satya Sai Baba was handed over to Suresh Santharam Prabhu at about 10:05 PM on 6-6-1993 at his home and his signature got...If the telegram was received at 10:05 PM by Suresh Santharam Prabhu at his home on 6-6-1993 the statement of Gangadjara Reddy that the assailants had tried to barge into the room where Sai Baba was resting in the Prasanthi Mandir allegedly to hand over a telegram at around 9:30 PM is false and the time of 10:30 mentioned by the newspapers is correct as it would take time for the 4 alleged assailants to reach Sai Baba's residence after receiving the telegram at 10:05...Therefore the incident could have happened before 9:00 PM and the alleged 4 assailants could not have stabbed them as they reached Prasanthinilayam, Sai Baba's residence only by about 10:30 PM...This proves that the 4 alleged accused did not stab the 4 aides of Sai Baba in the ground floor nor in the bedroom of Sai Baba and N. Radhakrishna, as they came to the residence of Sai Baba only at 10:30 PM on 6-6-1993...This is confirmed by the fact that the alarm system was activated only at 10:30 PM and not earlier when the 4 injured aides were taken to the hospital.")
As one can see, many contradictions are already evident. Here are the problems with Premanand's time line and how it fails, on all counts, as being genuine or verifiable:
Premanand contends that Radhakrishna was poisoned by drinking buttermilk. This does not explain how Mahajan was supposedly poisoned (Radhakrishna drank all the buttermilk, according to Sathya Sai Baba's Gurupurnima discourse). Premanand can cite no documents, inquests or post mortem certificates that agree with his speculations that Radhakrishna and Mahajan were poisoned. Premanand speculated they were poisoned. Despite Premanand accepting the SSH inquest's time for Radhakrishna and Mahajan's deaths, Premanand contends that these two were stabbed at the SSH! The obvious conclusion (if Premanand is right), is that the SSH covered-up the real cause of death (for Radhakrisha and Mahajan) and falsified the inquest information. This would mean that the time of 9:50pm and 9:45pm would have been written by doctors who falsified the inquest information. Consequently, these times would not be reliable.
The inquests also imply that Sathya Sai Baba's two other aides, Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley, were receiving treatment at the same time as Radhakrishna and Mahajan (Ref B: "...and the persons who were injured and undergoing treatment Mr. Anil Patley and Vishnu Bhat opened the door...and the two persons who are at present are getting the treatment - Anil Patley and Vishnu Bhat have opened the door...") This means that all four aides were at the SSH around 9:45pm. How Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley were stabbed is not explained by Premanand. According to Premanand, Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley poisoned the buttermilk that Radhakrishna drank and Sathya Sai Baba sipped (Ref A: "As the stab injury of the two Sai Baba aides murdered are not anti-mortem they would have died of Potassium Cyanide poisoning administered by the cook and the other aide i.e., Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley.") Premanand does not tell us why Bhatt and Patley were in the hospital. Since they had not been stabbed (according to Premanand) and were not poisoned (they did the poisoning), what were they receiving treatment for? Why were they trying to poison Sathya Sai Baba, Radhakrishna and Mahajan? Of course, Premanand cannot answer any of these questions without speculating and making blind guesses. There exist no documents that support Premanand's conspiracy theory.
Regarding the time of the assault, on the 4 assailants, Premanand made the following case:
1. The Time of the Assaultb. Occurrences of offence Day: Sunday, Date 6-6-93, Time 10:30 PM (Vol. 1, FIR Page 336) The Hindu (Vol. 2, Page 12), The Independent (Vol. 2, Page 17), Indian Express (Vol. 2, Page 25), The Statesman (Vol. 2, Page 31), Times of India (Vol. 2, Page 36) of 8.6.1993 have stated that the 4 assailants tried to crash into the residence of Satya Sai Baba at 10:30 PM - 10:45 PM on 6-6-1993.
Deccan Herald of 8-6-93 (Vol. 2, Page 9), published the interview with Gangadhara Reddy, Circle Inspector, Puttaparthi, who said that the assailants had tried to barge into the room where Sai Baba was resting in the Prasanthi Mandir to hand over a telegram at around 9:30 PM.
Mathrubhumi (Vol. 1, Page 70) investigated about the telegram and found that a telegram from Chandraswamy addressed to Satya Sai Baba was handed over to Suresh Santharam Prabhu at about 10:05 PM on 6-6-1993 at his home and his signature got.
This proves that Sai Baba had authorised Suresh Santharam Prabhu to receive telegrams, registered letters etc., and till that night he was in the good books of Sai Baba.
As per Justice Balakrishna Erady's statement, the 4 alleged accused were deputed to watch the residence of Sai Baba that night (Vol. 1, Page 116 & Vol. 2, Page 215)
If the telegram was received at l0:05 PM by Suresh Santharam Prabhu at his home on 6-6-1993 the statement of (Gangadjara Reddy that the assailants had tried to barge into the room where Sai Baba was resting in the Prasanthi Mandir allegedly to hand over a telegram at around 9:30 PM is false and the time of 10:30 mentioned by the newspapers is correct as it would take time for the 4 alleged assailants to reach Sai Baba's residence after receiving the telegram at 10:05.
Premanand's time line is based on a falsified F.I.R. Andnewspaper clippings that relied on the F.I.R. for their information. Premanand cannot substantiate his time line with named witnesses or factual documents. Despite this fact, Premanand has the audacity to say that his timeline is correct and reliable!
Earlier (on page one) Premanand denied using newspaper clippings as evidence, and said, "The newspaper items were submitted not as a proof but just to show how agitated the people were because of the destruction of the evidence by the police and the silence by Sathya Sai Baba and the followers who were present at the time of the murders." Considering Premanand's "Time of the Assault" argument, it is clear he has no other factual basis for his timeline, other than what was claimed in newspaper clippings, in particular Mathrubhumi, Vol. 1, Page 70. (which is discussed more in-depth, further down the page).
Consequently, as I said before (and will say once again), Premanand's time line for the assaults (against the four assailants) and the alarm are completely and utterly untrue and un-provable. Premanand dismissed the F.I.R. as being unreliable, yet affirmed the time given in the F.I.R. (Which was subsequently duplicated in newspapers, and used by them to form their own time-lines), for the time of the alleged assaults. Although Premanand's time line is unsubstaniated and based on newspaper clippings, he expects others to blindly believe him.

Reply to GM’s  Response No. 8 :
1.      I have not accepted that N.Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan died at 9:50 PM and 9:45 PM respectively. I only pointed out the Inquest Reports. I have accepted the Post Mortem Report as genuine, but not that it is in Telugu. So GM is falsely misinterpreting the words of the Post Mortem Report, claiming they were in Telugu.
2.      They were honest in this case.
3.      I deny the FIR that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were stabbed in the Sathya Sai Baba’s residence after 10.30PM.
4.      I have accepted that Radhakrishna and Sai Mahajan died because of poison as explained earlier. I need not substantiate anything to GM.
5.      I accepted that the 4 assailants entered the mandir at about 10.30 PM based on the receipt of the telegram at 10.05 PM There is no need to cite any court documents or any eye witnesses to support it. The newspaper reports filed in the writ petition have not been refuted by the court nor by the advocates of Sathya Sai Baba in the case, nor were any affidavits filed to that effect!

There are no contradictions. I have not contended anywhere that Radhakrishna was poisoned by drinking buttermilk – and GM provides no documentary evidence for this. Nor Sai Kumar Mahajan. This is not a speculation, as the 4 alleged assailants cannot stab them at 10.30pm if they were dead before 9.50 PM and 9.45 PM As they were in the Super Speciality Hospital there cannot be any other conclusion. The alleged time of death in the Inquest Report is given by the doctors of the Super Speciality Hospital and the Inquest Report is not made by the doctors.
The Inquest Report on Radhakrishna only says “it seems” (page 342 vol I para IX and X. It is in the FIR that the occurrence of crime at 10.30pm information received. Distance from police station to the place of occurrence ¼ furlong. All four injured were shifted to Super Speciality Hospital. While the Inquest Report on Sai Kumar Mahajan states (vol 1 page 346 ParaX “it is likely”. The Inquest Reports have not stated that Anil Patley, Vishnu Bhat were in the Super Speciality Hospital.

The proof of the telegram received by Suresh Santharam Prabhu is in the register in the telegraph office.

GM can confuse the people but not me and I do not expect others blindly to believe me. And if he considers that my conclusions are unsubstantiated, I have not confirmed the time of death but quoted the Inquest Report and if the Inquest Report and the statements of SSH is true, it is not possible for the alleged assailants to stab them in Sathya Sai Baba’s residence at 10.30pm. The response of Sathya Sai Baba in his discourse is based on SSH’s information given to the inquest officer and this ought to have come immediately, not 26 days after the murder incident.

I have not accepted the SSH and inquest line for Radhakrishna’s and Mahajan’s death. I have not contended that the two were stabbed at SSH. What I stated was that when the alleged assailants entering Sathya Sai Baba residence at about 10.30 they cannot stab the aides in the residence as they were in SSH at that time - dead already by 9.50 PM and 9.45 PM, according to the doctors. Yes, Sathya Sai Baba got it covered up.
The Inquest Report does not state anything about the two other aides receiving treatment at the same time as Radhakrishna and Mahajan.
No one had verified that Bhat and Patley were in the hospital undergoing treatment. Even in the FIR only mentions: “it is further learnt that all the four injured were shifted to SSH. I found all doors of Mandir were bolted from inside.” If all the doors of the mandir were bolted from inside, it is not explained how the 4 aides were shifted to SSH.

My time line is not based on a falsified FIR. There is no need to substantiate my time line as the records themselves prove it. The factual documents are there. It is not my audacity but what the documents prove.
I have not used newspaper clippings as evidence. The newspaper clippings did not rely on the FIR

GM’s Response No. 9 : It is amusing that Premanand said that I did not publish a reference for the time given for Radhakrishna's death by Sathya Sai Baba. This information came from the very same Gurupunima discourse that Premanand got the buttermilk reference from! Obviously, Premanand can't even remember the details to the articles he cites. In the Gurupurnima discourse, Sathya Sai Baba said (about Radhakrishna), "The messenger of death dogged him at 10 PM"

Reply to GM’s Response No. 9 : Sathya Sai Baba’s Guru Pournima Discourse cannot all be taken on face value, as it was given 27 days after the murders. There was criticism in the newspapers as to how the 4 aides were stabbed at 10.30 PM when they were in SSH, the time given by SSH doctors for Radhakrishna’s death.
But what about Sai Kumar’s death time, which he did not mention?

GM's Response No. 10 : First of all, the post mortem certificates were translated from Telugu into English. There may be other translations to the words "would appear". Since Premanand does not know Telugu (he never claimed he did), Premanand is basing his conjecture on the English version that he thinks are literal and infallible translations. The English version to the post mortem certificate, for Radhakrishna, stated, "Opinion: The deceased would appear to died to shock and haemmorage on a result of multiple injuries." The English version to the post mortem certificate, for Mahajan, stated, "Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of shock due to Multiple injuries." Both post mortem certificates specifically list what these "multiple injuries" were, i.e. stab wounds! The inquests state, "Mr. Anil Patley and Vishnu Bhat opened the door, the accused rushed towards the Swamiji's bed room (pothi) Sai Kumar Mahajan and other three while preventing them to enter, these three accused over powered these four people and stabbed them indiscriminately with daggers resulting in the death of "pothi" due to the injuries mentioned in Col. VII from 1 to 6...Then the accused over powered these four and stabbed them indiscriminately with the daggers resulting in the injuries which are mentioned in Col. VIII 1 to 15. Due to which he died." These certificates do not say Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan did not die due to stab injuries. So when Premanand said, "This proves that the two aides died not of stab injuries", he is being completely disingenuous. If there was any proof that they did not die from stab injuries, why did these certificates fail to mention this crucial fact?

Premanand said, "As the stab injury of the two Sai Baba aides murdered are not anti-mortem they would have died of Potassium Cyanide poisoning administered by the cook and the other aide i.e., Vishnu Bhatt and Anil Patley...The post-mortem report of N. Radhakrishna (Vo1, Page 347) and Sai Kumar Mahajan (Vol. 1, Page 349) do not state that the stab injuries were anti-mortem while in the case of deaths of the four alleged assailants the doctors clearly state that the injuries are anti-mortem and they died of shock & hemorrhage due to fire arm injuries." Where is the proof that they were poisoned? There is no proof. This is simply Premanand's conspiracy mentality working overtime again. It is apparent that since both Radhakrishna and Mahajan were initially alive, and both had inquests done at the Super Specialty Hospital, their paperwork would be different than someone who was brought in dead. Again, why didn't Premanand ask the examiners for clarification? Why didn't he get sworn affidavits? All of this proves that Premanand did not talk to the examiners. He is speculating on the English versions of Telugu documents.

Reply to GM’s Response No. 10 : The word ‘opinion’ is printed on the Post Mortem Certificate and is not a word added by the Doctors. This can be verified from the Post Mortem Report. The Post Mortem Reports were not translated from Telugu to English and they were and are in English. So GM’s speculations on this count do not stand up either. GM has thus twisted even the Post Mortem Reports so his statement that I am being completely disingenuous reverts back on him.

The crucial facts would be only in the forensic reports which have been suppressed by the government. Though the stab injuries on Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar are mentioned in the Post Mortem Report, unless there is mention that these stab injuries were Ante mortem it cannot be considered that they died of stab injuries. But the doctor has specifically used the word “would appear”. Even in the Inquest Report the officer states “it seems” for Radhakrishna and “it is likely” about Sai Kumar Mahajan (vol 1 page 346 ParaX). No one contradicted that there were no stab injuries, but the question was whether the stab injuries were Ante Mortem or Post Mortem.

The Inquest Report is based on the information given by SSH doctors and their paper work cannot be different. Why should I get the examiners’ clarification and their sworn affidavits? Why did GM not get them to prove my conclusions false? I have not talked to the Doctors of SSH or the persons who prepared the Inquest Report, as my conclusions are based on their Inquest Reports. As already explained I cannot be accused of speculating as to the contents of the English Post Mortem Reports when they were never translated from Telugu, already being in English? So GM is completely at sea and trying to drag others in after him.

GM's Response no. 11 : Premanand said, "I know very well the Doctors who conducted post mortem." However, two responses down (after this one) one will see how Premanand is not familiar with the examiners who conducted the post mortems. If Premanand knew the doctors "very well", why did he fail to question them regarding statements made on the certificates? Why didn't he obtain written statements from them?
Premanand said, "Without inquiring with the Doctor concerned GM is questioning me why I did not call him as a material witness for expert testimony? My writ petition was for a CBI enquiry. The higher courts are not the places to bring witnesses." Every time Premanand says this, I can't help but to chuckle. The entire purpose of the Writ Petition was to provide evidence that would warrant a CBI investigation due to the police acting unlawfully, failing to execute jurisdiction or being negligent in their public duty. Instead of obtaining an affidavit from the post mortem examiners, which would be relevant to the 1993 police shootings, Premanand instead chose to cite Tal Brooke's book, Lord Of The Air (which is irrelevant to the 1993 police shootings). In his writ petition, Premanand cited many problems with the FIR, but failed to include an affidavit from even one post mortem examiner that would all but have guaranteed a CBI inquiry! Especially when (according to Premanand) Radhakrishna and Mahajan's deaths were not the result of being stabbed, but due to being poisoned! Premanand could have submitted affidavits, if witnesses were not allowed.

Reply to GM’s Response No. 11 : GM’s speculations are based on falsity without contacting the doctors who conducted the post mortem (see 2 paras below). He is simply carrying on the same tirade mentioned in his response no. 9 which is replied. He can chuckle any time any where for his self-reflected brilliance, but others won’t. GM’s speculations about Tal Brook are irrelevant here and do not concern me anyhow.

GM's Response cont.: It is also amusing that Premanand said I am "thoroughly ill-informed" about matters pertaining to Indian law. Premanand should not be one to cast stones, considering his own failures, in Indian courts of law, against Sathya Sai Baba. Once he wins a case against Sathya Sai Baba, he can speak from a position of knowing. He has not won a case yet, which shows whom is "thoroughly ill-informed" about Indian law.

Reply to GM cont. : I have not failed in Indian courts of law nor have I cooked up stories. In my Writ Petitions against Sathya Sai Baba 1) a judge cannot be a judge in his own cause and 2) court being court of records a judge cannot base his judgement on his unproved beliefs. Some petitions (eg. on the Gold Control Act) did not win through due to Sathya Sai Baba-corrupted judges and other conditions of which GM knows nothing.  Both I and my advocates certainly know more about Indian law than GM, who fully demonstrates here and in former articles the deepest ignorance of the procedures, conditions of proof etc. involved.  How many cases has he so far raised in Indian courts? What is most amusing is GM’s ignorant posturing.

GM’s Response no. 12 : No where, on my site, do I claim that Swami Premananda is "innocent in the rape and murder case". What I said was, "Many people believe that Swami Premananda was framed and even the police officers, at the jail where he is at, believe he is not guilty. He was even allowed to leave the prison, to visit his ashram, for several weeks." Leave it up to Premanand to misrepresent and distort my words. See the pattern? Click Here to view the legal issues surrounding the case against Swami Premananda. Alleged sexual abuse victims recanted their testimonies and claimed that the police tortured them into giving fake testimonies against Swami Premananda. A world-renowned DNA specialist, Dr. Wilson J. Wall, said, "...Someone is trying to set-up Swami Premananda. The DNA case is a fabrication from start to finish. This deception throws a terrible shadow over validity of DNA fingerprinting if now there are scientists who are prepared to misuse it to find the innocent guilty." The case, regarding Swami Premananda, is hardly as simple as Premanand would like for others to believe. However, this discussion is not about Swami Premananda. It is about Premanand and his deception, dishonesty and deceit.

Reply to GM’s Response No.12 : GM virtually claims here and elsewhere that Swami Premananda was innocent, but wants to creep away from his assertions by tricky semantics. GM also did not mention that “many people believe” does not include him, nor has he documented why he is believed to have been framed. GM should document that Dr. Wall really made the above statement. The ‘click here’ ought to have been unbiased, but the legal issues quoted by GM in the click here is the statements given by Premananda’s followers and he has not cared to document the various advocates’ statements or the judgements in the lower courts up to the supreme court.
Whether Dr.Wilson J.Wall is a world-renowned DNA specialist, has not been proved in the ‘click here’ article. There was only an advertisement on his book. But in his scientific wisdom, GM can no doubt evaluate who is expert in DNA testing and who is not?

This reply by me is on the speculation GM made “this event by the way might explain why the specific references to the injuries being anti mortem was not specifically stated. “I have never stated that it was not Dr. C.P.Venkatanarayana who did the post mortems of Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan (Vol Pages 347 to 349)
I have already replied that I have consulted the doctors who conducted the post mortems and the proof that I contacted them and also forensic experts. GM is an expert in distorting the documents.
Who said that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were not dead when they arrived at the SSH? The submission by SSH is not valid. Where is the paper trail? Unless he documents them I cannot reply. I have already replied why the Post Mortem Reports did not contain the information that they were poisoned.

GM’s Response no. 13 : At: http://exbaba.com/articles/courtrecords.html, the post mortem certificates are replicated. Premanand just said, "GM wrongly assumes that the 4 post mortems on the alleged assailants were done by other doctors, and that Dr. C.P. Venkatanarayan did the Post-Mortem on Radha Krishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan." However, if one goes to the link just provided, one will see that Dr. C.P. Venkatanarayan only signed the post mortem certificates for both Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan. This is a verifiable fact. E. K. Suresh Kumar and Suresh Santharam Prabhu's post mortem certificates were signed by Dr. C.V. Prasad. K. Sai Ram's post mortem certificate was signed by Dr. G. Sumathi. And Jagannatham's post mortem certificate was signed by Dr. Y. Sumathi. So how did I "wrongly assume that the 4 post mortems on the alleged assailants were done by other doctors, and that Dr. C.P. Venkatanarayan did the Post-mortem on Radha Krishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan"? I guess Premanand is unaware of the contents to these post mortem certificates, that he replicated in his book, and to which he made repeated references. So, if Dr. C.P. Venkatanarayan was not the examiner who did the post mortems for Radhakrishna and Mahajan, Premanand should supply us with the correct name and cite the appropriate references.
Instead of pointing fingers at me and asking me why I didn't consult with the doctors or contact forensic experts, why didn't Premanand consult with the doctors and contact forensic experts? After all, he is the one trying to make his case against Sathya Sai Baba. All Premanand needed to do was contact Dr. C.P. Venkatanarayan and ask him why he wrote "would appear" (and clarify if that was the correct English translation) and left out the words "ante-mortem". If Premanand was so thorough, why didn't he get answers that were one question away? Another valid reason why the post mortem certificates may have been worded differently is because Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were not dead when they arrived at the Super Specialty Hospital. They died later. The Super Specialty Hospital also wrote inquests on them. So Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan already had a paper trail for a cause of death. The other four assailants were brought in dead and did not have inquests done at the Super Specialty Hospital. Also, why didn't the post mortem tests find any evidence of poisoning from potassium cyanide (Premanand claimed they were poisoned)?


Reply to GM’s Response No.13 : GM cannot point out where I mentioned that K.Sai Ram tried to enter Prasanthi Nilayam around 10.30pm to deliver what was purported to be a telegram to the Sai Baba from another godman Chandraswamy. I have already explained the  telegram question Any one may get the documentation from the government departments on the asking when the Right To Information Act 2005 (Act No 22 of 2005) would come to force on 12-10-2005.

GM’s response No. 14 : In the writ petition, Premanand said, "K. Sai Ram tried to enter Prashanti Nilayam around 10-30 p.m. to deliver what was purported to be a telegram to the Sai Baba from another godman Chandraswamy. It is on record of the post office that a telegram was delivered to Suresh Shantaram Prabhu addressed to Sai Baba." Premanand not only contradicts himself by saying that the paper was a "telegram" (and earlier said "purported to be a telegram", Premanand does not divulge that he got this information from an Indian Newspaper (Mathrubhumi, Vol. 1, Page 70). On the same writ petition, Premanand said, "Next day early newspapers proved it was true...6. Hiding from the public the telegram alleged to have been received from Chandraswami". Consequently, no one has ever seen this alleged "telegram". Premanand just said that the telegram was being hidden from the public! The only person who allegedly got the facts, about the telegram, was a newspaper reporter from the Mathrubhumi, whom Premanand failed to get a sworn affidavit from. Premanand just said, "This report on the investigation on the telegram was published in Mathrubhumi after checking with the records of the Telecommunications department of Puttaparthi." If this information was true, then where is the documentation from the "telecommunications department" that substantiates this claim? Again, Premanand is blindly believing and citing a newspaper clipping.

Reply to GM’s Response No.14 : Why did GM not add the complete sentence 13(i).“It is claimed that the four assailants namely (1) E.K.Suresh Kumar (2) Jagannathan , (3) Suresh Shantaram Prabhu but started my affirmation middle way from (4) K.Sai Ram? And while it is made clear in the next sentence that the telegram was delivered to Suresh Shantaram Prabhu (documented by GM himself in his response No. 13). I stated: “purported to be a telegram (as alleged in the FIR and the inquest reports and later was found to be a telegram to Sathya Sai Baba).

As on record with the Telecommunication department, the court would have verified it if it’s truth were in doubt, But it was not. It is for the department and the court to prove that my affirmation was false and take contempt of court action against me for filing a false affidavit.

GM’s Response No. 15 : At : http://exbaba.com/articles/writpetition.html Premanand tried citing the telegram as evidence. Premanand said, "13. (i)...(4) K. Sai Ram tried to enter Prashanti Nilayam around 10-30 p.m. to deliver what was purported to be a telegram to the Sai Baba from another godman Chandraswamy. It is on record of the post office that a telegram was delivered to Suresh Shantaram Prabhu addressed to Sai Baba...ii). Though 16 weeks have lapsed since the episode, the police are yet to record the statement of Sai Baba under 161 Cr. P.C. According to press version a telegram was dispatched by Chandraswami to Sai Baba and the assailants entered the premises that night with the telegram. The statements of neither of the Godmen have been recorded." Now, however, Premanand is saying that it was not his work "to submit evidence of the telegram". If it wasn't his work, whose work was it and why did Premanand try citing the telegram as evidence in the first place? After all, Premanand was the one trying to formulate a legal basis that would warrant a CBI investigation. Premanand just admitted he did not try. His only attempt was to cite a newspaper clipping! Premanand could have submitted documentation from the "telecommunications department" or an affidavit from the Mathrubhumi reporter to make a stronger case, but failed to do so. It is of little wonder that his writ petition was dismissed.


Reply to GM’s Response No. 15 : See my writ petition in which the courts considered that CBI enquiry was unnecessary because the CB-CID had done their work which was fair and impartial. The court did not find that the telegram was false.

GM’s Response No.16 : Premanand claimed that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were poisoned with potassium cyanide. The inquests and the post mortem certificates do not support this contention. Also, Premanand contended that either the four assailants or Sathya Sai Baba's 2 aides were bound with ropes. The inquests and the post mortem certificates make no mention of abraded skin due to being bound. Consequently, these speculations, from Premanand, are not supported (but contradicted) by the inquests and post mortem certificates. Regarding the timeline, I have discussed this earlier.


Reply to GM’s Response No. 16 :  I have covered this fully already.

GM's Response No. 17 : At http://exbaba.com/articles/whomurdered.html Premanand said, "The A.P. state government, the central government, central excise and customs department, the law enforcement department, state CB- CID, C.B.I, CVC, Court s- all know what is happening in Sai Baba's Empire." Now if all these agencies and departments know what is happening, and are refusing to act, what does this say about them? Does this mean they are honest, not corrupt and are not conspiring with Sathya Sai Baba? If all these agencies and departments know about Sathya Sai Baba, and are, at the same time, refusing to act and speak out, this clearly insinuates that they are either biased, corrupt or conspiring with Sathya Sai Baba. What other inference is there to make? Premanand did not separate the CBI with the other agencies and departments. He lumped them all together.

Reply to GM’s Response No.17 : GM can question them and not me. I have not stated that they are refusing to act. GM’s knowledge is so shallow he does not even realise that they can act only on specific orders from the state and central government.  This is proved by the State Government closing this murder case on RDO’s report suppressing the CB-CID report by throwing it in cold storage. About the information on the agencies and the government I am not interested as these are about them and GM can refer to them in his speculations about them. That the governments did not take any action against me strongly supports my statements published in the book ‘Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room’.

GM’s Response No. 18 : The "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room" book is out of print (according to Robert Priddy) and Premanand allegedly lost money publishing it. Premanand's writ petition is published on Anti-Sai Sites and I have discussed it on Page One to this rebuttal series. After Premanand's writ petition was dismissed, he said, "Along with my Writ petition I had submitted 186 pages of Newspaper clippings as annexure." So why is Premanand affixing one hundred eighty six pages of newspaper clippings if he did not believe these newspaper clippings argued in his favor?
I am not "afraid" to look at any of the questions that Premanand asks. Everyone is entitled to ask questions, probe and investigate. However, Premanand is not only asking questions, he is shamelessly speculating about the answers, trying to pass his speculations off as the truth. That is where I draw the line and where I disagree with him.

Reply to GM’s Response No.18 : I am not concerned as to what Mr. Robert Priddy wrote before he learned about the reprint. The newspaper clippings are part of the unchallenged public records of events.  I have already answered why I documented them. My questions are based on GM’s deception series article while his questions are not based on my book “Murders in Sai Baba’s Bed Room” from which he could have found all answers, I have not shamelessly speculated about the answers or tried to pass my conclusions off as the truth. GM can disagree with me but he cannot change his lies into truth.

GM’s Response No. 19 : If Premanand had actually visited my site (it is apparent he has not), he would have seen that I provide my contact link on just about every single page on my site! If my "contact" link is not listed on the side menu, it is listed at the bottom of the page in bold blue text that says "contact me". Premanand should have known this considering he copied "about a thousand" pages to my site. On my contact page, if one clicks the "Email Policy", there is an image that gives my full email address. This proves that Premanand did not read or view my site. Furthermore, Premanand is getting inaccurate information from his Anti-Sai colleagues. "Joe" is not an alias, but is a real name that I am known by. "Vishvarupa" is also not an alias, but the domain name to my other site. Why didn't Premanand research these claims for himself? Why didn't he contact me? Apparently, Premanand is relying on others to do the footwork for him and is repeating untruths like a trained parrot. This rudimentary lack of basic research proves that Premanand blindly believes what he is told and ignorantly perpetuates misinformation about me and my site.
Why doesn't Premanand tell us "how far" his complaints have gone with the Superintendent of Police in Nellore? Premanand does not divulge what progress, if any, has been made against Murali Krishna. Obviously, nothing has been done.

Reply to GM’s Response no. 19 : I have not seen GM’s contact link “on just about every single page on his web site”. I rely on a part-time secretary and friends to do my internet work, print-outs and contacts as I am not an Internet technical person and know very little about computers. I do not know what GM means by side menu. I have not contacted any of the Anti-Sai Sites. I do not know who GM really is as he hides from the public any way to check on his actual identity. An anonymous person can use any alias and no one can be sure whether he is lying or not. I am certainly not going to answer and inform GM anything about the status of my legal processes. If GM is so curious to know about my complaints and follow ups he can subscribe for Indian Skeptic by sending US$ 12/- as annual subscription or by depositing US$ 150/- and become a life subscriber when he will be eligible for 50% discount on all my books and this amount has to be sent to me by Western Union Money Transfer to my name.

Check up GM’s deception series and find out who is repeating like a trained parrot. GM has been shown time and again to be the one who demonstrates “this rudimentary lack of basic research” 

GM’s Response No. 20 : Where are the references that Premanand has to back up his claim that "this is what every Pro Sathya Sai Baba website mentions as devotees know very well know Sathya Sai Baba does not get involved in legal battles". It is true that many sites provide a disclaimer about not being associated with the official Sathya Sai Organization Home Page (which is done as a common courtesy to prevent people into thinking they are visiting the "official" site). However, I have yet to see any Pro-Sathya Sai Baba site that claims they personally are not associated with the Sai Org, nor do they go to any Sai Group or Sai Center. Since Premanand just said that my disclaimer is "what every Pro Sathya Sai Baba website mentions", he should substantiate this claim with the proper references.
Another example of Premanand's blatant untruths, and poor research, is highlighted when he said, "I had to copy many of GM's articles on his website at http://www.saisathyasai.com/, which has come to about thousand pages from 2000 to 2005 June and I find that he has vilified me in many articles." As I stated previously, my site is composed of around 260 pages (excluding Google and forum caches and screen captures which I did not write). Furthermore, my site, exposing Anti-Sai Activists, was started in Early October 2004 (not 2000) on my Vishvarupa domain. I moved my Anti-Sai section, to my new domain at saisathyasai.com, on May 31st 2005. Premanand is off by four years. If Premanand cannot get even the most basic information right, about my site, what does this say about his information regarding Sathya Sai Baba?

Reply to GM’s Response No. 20 :  Unless I copy the references made on GM’s web site including ‘click here’ articles, the research on his allegations will not be complete and they are not 1000 pages but now an estimated 5000 pages or more. I cannot understand what is the connection with GM’s sites and my article on Sathya Sai Baba? In his article on oilings, GM has stated how he had a connection with Sathya Sai Baba. I do not operate the computer and therefore did not know which of GM's sites (with their ever-changing contents to cover over his worst ignorant blunders) were started in 2000 or 2004. Nor does it have any significance except to him and this says absolutely nothing at all about my information regarding Sai Baba... since GM thinks so, he should start at primary school all over again.

The saibabaexposed.com web site is not mine (I have no other website either) but is owned by Conny Larsson, as GM well knows and has himself stated long ago on his website. However, I am informed that a technical copying mistake was made, giving the wrong e-mail address for the owner (my e-mail address was given instead there too). This has now been corrected. 


GM’s Response No. 21 : Premanand already said, several times, that he filed a complaint against Murali Krishna. As a matter of fact, just earlier, Premanand said, "I had gone to meet the Superintendent of Police, Nellore and District Collector of Nellore District to find how far my complaints have been investigated." However, for some mysterious reason, Premanand is mute on the status of his complaints. Why? Since Premanand is not forthcoming with the information regarding his complaint, it is to be concluded that nothing has been done (because Premanand would surely have been bragging about it if something had been done), because Murali Krishna did not do anything wrong. Until I see documented evidence to the contrary, Premanand is simply engaging in his well known (and now fully documented) propagandizing.
It is apparent the Premanand does not know what constitutes "cyber crime". According to the Canadian Foreign Affairs, "Cyber crime consists of specific crimes dealing with computers and networks (such as hacking) and the facilitation of traditional crime through the use of computers (child pornography, hate crimes, telemarketing /Internet fraud). In addition to cyber crime, there is also 'computer-supported crime' which covers the use of computers by criminals for communication and document or data storage."
Premanand has no clue that State Officials, in Andhra Pradesh, do not regulate the Internet (something he would have known if he had really talked to them in the first place). I am fully prepared defend my viewpoints, and freedom of speech, by sending my responses to the same authorities that Premanand claimed he sent his to. As one can see, Premanand is not going to go unchallenged, without a fight.

Reply to GM’s Response No.21 :  I am not mute on the status of my complaints. I know some action will be taken as they cannot put my complaints in the dustbin. I cannot discuss publicly or to an anonymous defamer. GM can question Murali Krishna Yachendra whether he was contacted by the Law Enforcement Department. When he claims he has nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba and not documented whether he is carrying on his deception series on behalf of Sathya Sai Baba with his it is sheer shameless cheek on his part to expect that I will share any information with him on legal or any other matters. I am simply engaging in my well known (and now fully documented) propagation of facts and relevant viewpoints Canadian Foreign Affairs are totally irrelevant to this, I refer only to Indian Affairs. I know perfectly well that the state police in Andhra Pradesh do not regulate the Internet, also that every state has a cyber crime department. Recently some Internet crime cases have been taken up and the persons were arrested. More developments to regulate and punish misusers of the Internet are coming all the time around the world. GM is welcome to come to India and fight his case. Freedom of speech does not imply the automatic right to libel and vilify any one or even to state untruths and deceptions. GM’s only evident purpose has been to deceive, cover up and make serious false allegations backed only by lightweight, irelevant and fallacious arguments.  They are now on record permanantly.

The Right to Information Act has been promulgated and would come into force on 12.10.2005. So several unanswered questions by Sathya Sai Baba and his leaders would come to light including the copy of the confidential GO, the CB-CID Report and the enquiry report of the RDO on which the murder case was closed. The law enforcement department would be forced to tell what has happened to their complaints and what action has been taken on them. The questions which GM is demanding I answer, he can address to the law enforcement department, the government and the judiciary. The state and central government may exempt Sathya Sai Baba and his leaders as a special  case to give information of the CB-CID report and the report by RDO on which basis the murder case was closed on a confidential Government Order. But in that case this would question the credibility of the Government in enacting “The Right to information Act –2005.