Moved: Unborn Child Dies in Ahmedadbad

[FistOfFury]

Eh ? Hare Krishna, a devotional paper-peddling entity all engrossed in Vishnu has nothing to do with Hinduism ?!? Those Hinduvtas massively misquote and misrepresent Vivekananda- his entire work, speeches and essays are available on the net and are taught extensively in hindu missionary schools like Ramkrishna Mission. Vivekananda was apolitical and his philosophical base borrowed a lot from Buddhism- a fact he himself acknowledges and thoroughly defends.

Yes Hare Krishna's are VAISHNAVS that follow Lord Krishna/Mahavishnu and his Avatars. They accept the Gaudiya Vaishnav Sampradya. Go look up Hinduism, the word "Hindu" does not appear in Vedic Scriptures. It does not appear in the Mahabharat (inc Bhagavad Gita,), the Ramayan or the Srimad Bhagavatam. It was a term coined on all religious beliefs in India. The word Hindu has no meaning, the word "Vaishnav" does it means devotee of Lord Vishnu. Simarly Shavites are devotees of Lord Shiva. Just because Vaishnavs worship Lord Vishnu and pay respects to other deities, does not make them a standard "Hindu". Hinduism seems to be preaching "ALL IS ONE" and mainly an impersonal God, therefore it is no accepted by Vaishnavism. From what I was aware of, Vivekananda was one of the first to give the "Hindu" identity to the western world and his Mayavadi take on his religion called Hinduism. As you said he borrwowed from Buddhism, that maybe so, thats where "Advaita" philosophy comes from - from a time when Adi Shankacharya spread his philosophy and defeated the Buddhists in India. Every Hare Krishna devotee I have come across so far are more concerned about their Spirituality, then about Shiv Sena muppets parading around doing jack ****. The BJP, RSS, Shiv Sena etc are INDIAN movements. The Hare Krishna movement although orginating from India is for everyone, white, indian, black, dalit, chinese, brahmin, etc. **************************** Prabhupada: No. Hinduism practically we do not recognize because this word "Hinduism" is not mentioned in any Vedic literature. It is a foreign term. The Muhammadans, they called the inhabitants of India as "Hindus." From that word, it is has come to "Hinduism." Otherwise, we don't find that word in any Vedic literature. "Hinduism" is a foreign term, it is not a Vedic term. Reporter: Yes. The Krsna consciousness, its Vedic literature, they have some of the same books or also holy books for what we call Hindu religions, aren't they? Prabhupada: Yes. Just try to understand, the inhabitants of India were called by the Muhammadans from Persia and other places, "Hindus." "Hindus" means the resident on the other side of the River Indus. You have heard the name of River Indus. So they cannot pronounce it Indus, they say "Hindus." From "Hindus," it has become "Hindu." So actually the residents of India were called "Hindus." And generally, at least in, say, three thousand years ago, all the inhabitants of India were strictly followers of Vedic principles. After the advent of Lord Buddha, a different religious system developed. Otherwise, before Lord Buddha, there was all the... Not only in India, in other parts of the world. They were followers of Vedic principles. So in that sense, you can say if followers of Vedic principles are called Hindus, then before Lord Buddha, everyone was Hindu all over the world. Not that particular part of India. So far we have got historical reference from Mahabharata, Indo-European stock, they are also Hindus, the so-called Hindus, followers of Vedic principles. Yes. Gradually, they deviated. Just like recently there is division of Pakistan and India. Twenty years before, this Pakistan was part of India. Now, these Muhammadans, they did not come from outside. They changed their faith from Hindus to Muhammadans. Now they divided their property. Similarly, actually the whole planet was called Bharata-varsa. Gradually, people deviated from Vedic principles or imitated something else and they became different. ************************************

[CC1981]

Go look up Hinduism, the word "Hindu" does not appear in Vedic Scriptures.

Ofcourse not.

It was a term coined on all religious beliefs in India. The word Hindu has no meaning, the word "Vaishnav" does it means devotee of Lord Vishnu. Simarly Shavites are devotees of Lord Shiva. Just because Vaishnavs worship Lord Vishnu and pay respects to other deities, does not make them a standard "Hindu".

Hindu is what the Persians called us from ancient times- where they couldnt/wouldnt distinguish between the various 'clans' of hinduism. However, it is appropriate to designate Hare Krishna as hinduism/branch of Hinduism, as it is essentially the same philosophical and karmic base as Shaivism,Shaktism and most other -isms that make Hinduism. The correct vedic terminology is nastika and anastika ( believer or non believer in scriptural authority of the Vedas).

Hinduism seems to be preaching "ALL IS ONE" and mainly an impersonal God, therefore it is no accepted by Vaishnavism

Vaishnavism is no different from Shaivism as Shaivism is from Shaktaism. Vashnavism is one subsect of Hinduism, which is a religion of many sub-sects. Differentiation of Vaishnavism from Hinduism is completely flawed and IMO, a reflection of natural tendency of humans to differentiate their beleifs from the mainstream for some sort of 'uniqueness' kick.

from a time when Adi Shankacharya spread his philosophy and defeated the Buddhists in India.

That is nothing more than hinduvta nonsense. Buddhism is a much more concise philosophy than Hinduism. Adi Shankaracharya had little or no impact on the decline of Buddhism in India. There are two dates given for Shankaracharya- 700-800 AD and 500-400 BC. The first is more historically consistent, the latter is from the Shankara matha clergy. If the latter is true, then Shankaracharya is ineffective, because Buddhism took off in India after 300 BC( in terms of mass following),which is after Adi S. If the latter is true, then Shankaracharya still has very little effect on Buddhism, as Buddhist travellers like Faxian and Xuan Zang who came atleast two-three centuries before Adi S already noted about the decline in Buddhism in the subcontinent. What started the decline of Buddhism is the formation of the essence of modern Hinduism, with its roots in the latter day Gupta-Chalukya period. It is noted that Hinduism re-surged during those times, after almost 800 years of steady decline ( Jains + Buddhists = more than 60% of India from Ashoka's time to Harshavardhana) because Hinduism devolved itself to simple God-hood worship, instead of delving into the karmic principles. In what was a largey uneduated time, the common masses had much easier time dealing with a simplistic God-story that Hindus resurrected instead of trying to understand the much more complex chain of karma/mokshya, which hinduism focussed on before then and steadily lost devotees to Buddhism and Jainism until it was a minority in the subcontinent. The resurge in the more simplistic 'hare krishna/hare rama' type of bhakti, which is far easier (and dumber) to follow than the non-Godly buddhism or 'mechanical God' of Jainism reconverted a lot of the uneducated masses back to Hinduism. The final death-knell of Buddhism was Islam- which targeted Buddhism far more aggressively than Hinduism. Not only is it recorded in Islamic empire era sources, the reason for that is explicitly mentioned in the Koran: Islam has a heirarchy of people. Muslims are 'aweomse people' who deserve the best respect according to Islam, the Jews and Christians are 'corrupted muslims, who changed their books' and are thus, Ahl-al-kitub: people of the book. Thus, they are 2nd class citizens and slightly fallen off their exalted perch but there is still hope for them, for they still believe in one lord, abraham(Ibrahim) and moses(moosa). The hindus, avestans,greeks,egyptians etc. are despicable people because they worship cows and cats and practiced host of different social forms. However, the WORST/LOWEST form of life- lower than an animal or such- was reserved for atheists. Those who believe in no God/do not acknowledge God in any form. Since Buddhism technically is silent on God and openly says 'God is irrelevant', the Buddhsts were persecuted with genocidal venom- which caused a lot of deaths, lot of conversion of Buddhists to Islam and lot of Buddhists joining the hindu schools of resurgence (with their dumbed down God nonsense). More or less, that encompasses the history of Buddhism in the subcontinent and i don't think you've read enough or know enough of buddhism (or hinduism-Vaishnivism-whatever) for that matter to really comment on who defeated whom or if there was actually contest between the two.

Yes. Just try to understand, the inhabitants of India were called by the Muhammadans from Persia and other places, "Hindus

Not just 'muhammadans of Persia'- the Indians were referred to as hindus by persians long before Islam came to fore- its first mention is from the Arsacid Parthan records and that is essentially because the Persian language of that time (middle persian) lost the 'i' retroflex and replaced it with the 'h'. Sort of how the Spanish do not pronounce 'x' and replace it with 'h' ( its me-Hee-co, not Mexico in Spanish!).

And generally, at least in, say, three thousand years ago, all the inhabitants of India were strictly followers of Vedic principles

This is categorically false. Jainism's base in India is atleast as old as tracable Vedic principles and there is extensive INDIAN literary evidence to suggest that pre-500 BCE (3000-2500 years ago), Jainism was one of the MAJOR religions of India. Your guru, like most hindu scholars, make the basic mistake of assuming that Mahavir was the founder of Jainism, when infact, he was the 14th or 15th Tirthankar, with Jain principles being widely practiced. Furthermore, in the same timeperiod, we had several other schools of thought- the materialist and atheistic Carvaka school, which had mass following as well as Ajivika. To say that 'all/most' inhabitants of 'hindustan' were Hindus 3000 years ago, is most categorically false. Infact, it is highly questionable if Hinduism ever as much sway in India as it does today.

Not only in India, in other parts of the world. They were followers of Vedic principles. So in that sense, you can say if followers of Vedic principles are called Hindus, then before Lord Buddha, everyone was Hindu all over the world

So the ancient meso-americans were hindus ? what about the Chinese or the Greeks ? Such categoric hyperbole reduces the credibility of your source to nothing more than a hindu version of 'bible-thumper'.

Not that particular part of India. So far we have got historical reference from Mahabharata, Indo-European stock, they are also Hindus, the so-called Hindus, followers of Vedic principles. Yes. Gradually, they deviated. Just like recently there is division of Pakistan and India. Twenty years before, this Pakistan was part of India. Now, these Muhammadans, they did not come from outside. They changed their faith from Hindus to Muhammadans. Now they divided their property. Similarly, actually the whole planet was called Bharata-varsa. Gradually, people deviated from Vedic principles or imitated something else and they became different.

This is nothing more than Hindu fantasy of pan-hinduism, which every religion had. Ask a Jew/Christian and he'd say before the flood, whole world was Abrahamic. Not only is the above not true, there is categoric, water-tight evidence that comments such as ' all the world was hindu at xyz point' is nothing more than pure conjencture and wishful thinking from a biassed source.

[FistOfFury]

This is nothing more than Hindu fantasy of pan-hinduism, which every religion had. Ask a Jew/Christian and he'd say before the flood, whole world was Abrahamic. Not only is the above not true, there is categoric, water-tight evidence that comments such as ' all the world was hindu at xyz point' is nothing more than pure conjencture and wishful thinking from a biassed source.

ITS A BELIEF. Dont believe it if you dont wish. I believe the Mahabharat took place 5000 years ago, but it cant because the white aryans invaded the black dravidians to create the indian race. Then buddhism and jainism came, then slowly the new Hinduism with "simplistic-God" thinking was created. Thats the theory in a nut shell right? That quote was to indicate that Srila Prabhupda and his movement did not accept the term Hinduism, I dont care what you believe. At the end of the day, you can believe your cr@p about Vaishnavism being a branch of "Hinduism", i dont mate. They dont want to be associated with meat-eating, onion BO-Stinking, pompous, "know it all" freshie vivekananda bible thumpers. I had a quick glance over your theories about Jainism and Buddhism, and how "simplistic-God" theory was "resurrected". You dont need to bother, i've read it all before. I dont care, because it means nothing to me. There's not enough evidence (you might be to differ...oh well) to convince that is anymore right than the whole world be vedic (including the meso-americans :)). I dont care about the outsider view (western scholars) on about the how the vedic religion created, time and time again your view has been "THUMPED" into history books as the truth, without their being enough evidence...any other point of view is completely out of the question?? Pseudo-Science, Pseudo-Archeiology..... "Hindu Bible Thumpers" Bible-thumping "Nastika"! My first post was to criticize you for clumping hare krishna with shiv sena and VHP, thats a bit of dumbass thing to do isnt it? I'm not bothered about about how Jainism and Buddhism created the New Hinduism...i've read that too many times.

[sandtest]

Irrelevant to who or what their professions are. What is a fact ( and as i said, 9/11 is a GOOD example) that eyewitness testimonies to a shocking collective event is notoriously unreliable.

You are unneccessarily spinning the things when it's not needed. Can you prove by providing any reference even from BS report of Congress which says that eyewitness accounts who saw mobs stone pelting and burning the train at Signal Falia were under "trauma" illusion. So far it's only YOU who is arguing and crapping about Trauma "illusion" theory.

[CC1981]

So far it's only YOU who is arguing and crapping about Trauma "illusion" theory.

I am not arguing about it, i am educating you on what is a FACT - i know you self-proclaimed hinduvta desis know very little about fields such as psychology and its impact/development here. I am also INFORMING YOU that in any court of law, forensic evidence trumps eyewitness testimony. if 10 people say i raped a chick but not a trace of my semen is found on her or the area, i am free. If 1000000000 people say that people doused petrol on traincars and set them on fire but forensics say that fire started on 5th compartment seat 44B under a blanket, the forensic report stands. Eyewitness accounts are valid only for individual crime- one man kills another/rapes a woman, a gang beats up a guy etc, because of the low # of specimens involved. However, in social scale ( mass stampede, train being torched by a mob, big explosion, chain bombing,etc etc), the level of shock is far bigger and facts become far sketchier. Any decent lawyer will simply tear apart such eyewitness accounts to shreds- one 'eyewitness' will recall 25 dhoti-clad men comming from east, another will recollect 32 lungi clad men comming from north-east. another will say 20 people. Another will say at 11pm, yet another at 10:30, some will say at a signal point, some will say just before signal point. The scale of such an incident leaves very little CONSISTENT FACTS on eyewitness reports and that is why eyewitness reports arnt held up in a court of law in such cases and they tend to go by forensics. Thats why, i am saying, if you think the congressi 'enquiry' was biassed, you NEED to focus on the report itself...pick it apart, see if their assumptions, their points of enquiry, their evidence, etc. is cogent or not. But raising 'eyewitness accounts' versus a forensic enquiry will see you lose 100% of the time in a court of law.

[CC1981]

ITS A BELIEF. Dont believe it if you dont wish.

Every beleif needs a basis...saying that 'all of India was hindu 3000 yrs ago' when FACTS clearly show otherwise isnt beleif, its denial of the truth. Saying that 10,00000 yrs ago, all humanity was hindu isnt a beleif, its throwing a purely hypothetical there. I can easily say 10K years ago, all humanity followed shamanism and witchdoctor-isms of Africa...you have just as much basis in beleiving that instead of hindu tilt, so why not ?? Personally, i think its dishonest to potray a purely hypothetical beleif about what humanity was up to before recorded history, when no evidence of it exists whatsoever.

At the end of the day, you can believe your cr@p about Vaishnavism being a branch of "Hinduism", i dont mate. They dont want to be associated with meat-eating, onion BO-Stinking, pompous, "know it all" freshie vivekananda bible thumpers.

What others think of you is just as important as what you think of yourself. As i said, every single hardcore member of every single religious sect tries to disassociate with the others but at the end of the day, they are no different than other subsects in their larger religious family. Whether you like it or not, vaishnavism is just another form of hinduism like shaivism, hinduvta,shakta, etc. to not just me and many others, but to many Hare Krishnas themselves (who i know personally).

There's not enough evidence (you might be to differ...oh well) to convince that is anymore right than the whole world be vedic

Most categorically false. What i said about history of Jainism & Buddhsm, is documented by historians/travellers, etc. from ANCIENT TIMES - both from our lands and foreign. Buddhist philosophers like Nagarjuna have categorically said which areas of India were jain dominated/budh dominated/nastika or anastika in their times. Your 'whole world was hindu' has absolutely ZERO shred of material evidence and documentation and is purely a modern makeup story. That is where the difference lies- material and historical evidence vs pure concoction.

My first post was to criticize you for clumping hare krishna with shiv sena and VHP, thats a bit of dumbass thing to do isnt it?

From where i stand, no. While i agree that HKs are apolitical, they still serve to further the political agenda of the hinduvtas and hinduness in the world.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Nanavati panel report is not out yet so desist from insinuating Nanvati panel says this or that.. banerjee report that's laloo report .. hiw whole report is based on the fact that he could not find traces of hydrocarbon after three years in the bogey.> had this socalled judge takne high-school scienc course may he wud have known these hydrocarbons are volatile and it wud be hard to find traces in few months let alone after several years.. Now for the mullah morons who lap any **** and bukk story here are some facts.. (1) So fire started from inside in a jam packed bogey with more than 200 people .. that kind of fire can only happen yes again forensic results when 10-20 small socalled gas cylinder burst.. I too have travelled in trains possibility of 20 stove or 20 tea mendors being present in a ajm=acked bogey is next to none (2) Improptu crowd of 2000 doesn't assemble at trop of hat.. I have already mentioend even if those peopel took any girl and gang-raped her beofre their wives and daughters still for this news to sink in it wud take hours before any mobilization of 2000 strong soldiers with sword and petrol cud take place..But within minutes hardly after a km from station these champions of peace gheraoed the train and burnt (3) And sickos who justify this well kind of tells why another set of sickos are these days planting bombs.. if someone is hellbent on justifying the unjustifiable tyhe semi-literate ones well then imagine the mental state of illiterate mosque attenders who hear this sort of **** and bull story (4) At least 5-6 stories with different version came in order to justify that sick behaviour on last count all these sick individuals were putting their weight behind Banerjee masala report I guess not enough confidence in that repoprt so reverting back to original **** and bull story (5) First story was teat vendor was not paid and from there on they kept adding the BS I ask even if that said fictional rape happend do you justify burnign of 60 peopel women and children alive for that.. If yes you need serious mental help.....If you do them I am sorry to say people like you are blowing things up in India today.. I would have no qualm in advocating a swift bullet being put through such individuals head from point blanck range

[Guest dada_rocks]

no one will just set a train bogie on fire for no apparent reason...the muslim girl was raped and killed...it was exposed on Tehelka...but educated modi worshippers will call it a fake story. these guys will destroy India...:finger:

moron tehleka expose deals with post-godhara.. have you noticed one after another muslim believing in that fantassy stories.. only difference between you guys and those bombers in theynot only believe it they have taken upon a vendetta act..

[Guest dada_rocks]

hey cry baby, stop being a jerk...my response to you was only after you started verbal diaherea..:D if you dont like my posts just shut up !!!! may be you are a big fan of that baby killer narender modi....that is why you are acting as if you ass-is on fire....:haha: here read and view this and feel macho like these ppl http://www.tehelka.com/story_main35.asp?filename=Ne031107spycam_videos.asp

peopel worship baby killers Do u think u are the only one who can read..... So sicko u think in your warped mind that if someone gets gang=-raped a bogey-full fo people should be burnt alive.... l'et us play your game assumign ur fiction to be fact.. Now ask yourself in what way you are different from the individuals who are running amock with bomb in their hands.... They too have a grivance and think blowing people up is right for that.. I wud have thought sanity to prevail after couple of days obut it seems we are dealing wiht serious sickos who will keep the fire of hatred going for ages.. What's next hindus to star blowing recalling MOPLA riots..

[Guest dada_rocks]

paji ' date=' neither i trust Lalu neither i trust BJP nor congress... but the fact is even experts suggest that it is impossible to light fire on a running train. The fire started inside the compartment.[/quote'] Expert what the heck are u talking about that moron banerjee doesn;t know the basic fact of sceienc and his report havce rightly been debunked as bunkum political posturing by laloo.. His whole report was based on fidning traces of volatile sample of hydrocarbon after three years.. only a mororon wud take this kind of task and giver any verict.. anyone with rudimentary knowldege of chemistry knows better..

[Guest dada_rocks]

You are unneccessarily spinning the things when it's not needed. Can you prove by providing any reference even from BS report of Congress which says that eyewitness accounts who saw mobs stone pelting and burning the train at Signal Falia were under "trauma" illusion. So far it's only YOU who is arguing and crapping about Trauma "illusion" theory.

Leave CC aside he thinks 9/11 is internal job and controleld demolitoion.> ia sked one simple question do you even know what it takes to demolish abuilding like that .. THis reply was my dadaji was civil engineer hence I must not question his expertise in thsi regard..:--D.. He is expert on everyt topic under the son by flissiest of association.....gets *****ly if u prod a little ponga-pandit shud be left alone with his garbage theoris.. jesus I had taken sabbatical but these guys won't let me live alone

[King Tendulkar]

I am also INFORMING YOU that in any court of law, forensic evidence trumps eyewitness testimony. if 10 people say i raped a chick but not a trace of my semen is found on her or the area, i am free. .

What rubbish. If there are 10 eye witness accounts of you raping a chick you would be found guilty. In any western court 10 eye witnesses of you raping a chick would mean you would be guilty despite forensic not finding your semen. By the way in your beloved islam they only need 4 eye witness testimony of rape. Forensic not required! Of courese in your beloved Islam they require 4 MALE witneses of the rape:((Forensic evidence is not valid. Female witnesses are not valid. Also if 4 male witnesses asre not provided and she provides forensic evidence this would be invalid and if married would be guilty of adultery and then stoned to death. Islam the religion of peace!

[CC1981]

If there are 10 eye witness accounts of you raping a chick you would be found guilty.

False. Ask your friend Gaurang about it if you don't believe me- if there is no trace evidence on forensics, i am a free man, despite the whole nation accusing me. Its just that simple. How much do you want to bet on this ? Forensics vs eyewitness : forensics win 100% of time in a court of law.

By the way in your beloved islam they only need 4 eye witness testimony of rape. Forensic not required! Of courese in your beloved Islam they require 4 MALE witneses of the rapeForensic evidence is not valid. Female witnesses are not valid. Also if 4 male witnesses asre not provided and she provides forensic evidence this would be invalid and if married would be guilty of adultery and then stoned to death. Islam the religion of peace!

Stop being an idiot. I've categorically said that my issue here isnt whether the train was set on fire or whether it was an internal fire ( i already said, i dont know)- i said that the METHODOLOGY of sandtest is suspect here. In a court of law, forensics will trump eyewitness testimony 100% of time if there is conflict between the two. Every single time, without fail. In India, australia,canada, europe,american,japan, ie, ALL democratic judiciary system, it is true. Therefore, he'd be better off making his case about congressi ghaplaa (which if you'd notice, i didnt rule out and said categorically that i acknowledge congressi muslim appeasement) by poking holes in the criterias and chain of events in the forensic report rather than raising the useless 'eyewitness' case. Where you get this 'beloved muslims' comment from here, only a fundie nutter would know. Its the typical of 'if you criticise me, you are with my enemy' type of illogic and paranoia.

[King Tendulkar]

False. Ask your friend Gaurang about it if you don't believe me- if there is no trace evidence on forensics, i am a free man, despite the whole nation accusing me. Its just that simple. How much do you want to bet on this ? Forensics vs eyewitness : forensics win 100% of time in a court of law.

What tosh! How do you know what a jury is going to do. There is no law saying if you dont have forensic evidence that you cant be convicted of rape. Utter balls you are posting. People have been convicted with a lot less evidence then 10 direct witness accounts of a rape! You know as well as I know that 10 eye witness testimonies of you raping a chick will have every jury in the western world convicting you! Please post references of laws stating that forensic evidence is a must for a conviction! You wont be able to as there is none!

[kumble_rocks]

CC , Dsr is right ... Where did you get your facts from ... As for as I know , their is no law which says that forensic evidence is a must for convicting of rape.. heck , people can get charged for attempted rape with no semen involved ...

[Willow_on_fire]

Expert what the heck are u talking about that moron banerjee doesn;t know the basic fact of sceienc and his report havce rightly been debunked as bunkum political posturing by laloo.. His whole report was based on fidning traces of volatile sample of hydrocarbon after three years.. only a mororon wud take this kind of task and giver any verict.. anyone with rudimentary knowldege of chemistry knows better..

here smart-ass read this as well...btw these people are more knowledgeble than a narendra modi fan like you. http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=540&issue_id=21

[Desi Cartman]

here smart-ass read this as well...btw these people are more knowledgeble than a narendra modi fan like you. http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=540&issue_id=21

Im not a big fan of Modi either but this report is shyyt ..

Observations 1. Of the 11 passengers who made statements in this regard, only 1 said that the fire began towards the engine (front) end of the coach. The rest were unanimous that the fire began from the guard (rear) end. 2. The limited information available from 4 statements suggests that the time taken for the fire and smoke to spread could vary between 10 to 20 minutes. All these statements have been made by passengers who were further away from the origin of the fire. 3. 14 passengers have testified to stone pelting on the coach and 5 of them were sure that the stones had come from the South (or platform) side. 4. 23 passengers said that some inflammable substance was flung into the coach. 10 of these even specified that this was in the form of a burning rag or “mashal” or petrol and acid thrown from outside. All these 10 passengers were in the 5th or 6th cabin from the front but did not mention their specific seat. 5. 4 passengers said some liquid was thrown into the lavatory. Of these, 3 belonged to one family who were located in the 1st cabin. 4 passengers noticed some liquid on the floor and all of them were in the 5th cabin. 6. 17 passengers said they had escaped out of the door and they all specified that this was towards the yard (North) side. 13 other passengers escaped out of windows, again presumably towards the yard side because of alleged stone-throwing on the other side. 7. The mapping exercise indicates that all those passengers who were towards the passage side up to the 6th cabin and probably noticed the smoke first escaped out of the door on the yard side of the front end of the coach. Only 1 person escaped from the other door on the same side because he was sitting on berth 72 closest to the door. 3 others of one family in the 1st cabin said they had forced their way out from the space between the connecting vestibules in the front. 2 windows from which some of the bars were broken appear to have been the exit route for 6 other passengers. The bar joints can be broken from the inside by a few sharp blows with something heavy. Conclusions 1. Those passengers with easy access to the door appear to have made their way quickly through it as soon as the first signs of smoke began appearing. 2. Others who were further away from the door and closer to the origin of the fire had to break their way out through the windows. 3. Apparently stone pelting from the South meant that people hesitated to make an exit from that side. 4. The huge majority (16/23) of those who said that inflammable substances were thrown from outside could not specify which seat they were in or what was their reserved berth. Of the remaining 7, only 3 were located near where the fire began near the 9th cabin. Of the other 4, 3 also belonged to the family that said they saw liquid being poured into the lavatory and were at the opposite end in the 1st cabin, while the 4th was in the 2nd cabin. Hence, the evidence points to the fact that the fire could not have been ignited by pouring petrol on the floor and setting it ablaze. 5. Recording of statements from passengers by the police has been totally unsystematic and shoddy. No method has been followed in the procedure, and many of the statements are repetitive as if they have been dictated. Thus vital clues have been missed and a scientific analysis of the probable causes of the fire has been subverted. A detailed and systematic procedure for recording of evidence must be laid down and all police personnel trained in adopting these procedures.

[King Tendulkar]

What tosh! How do you know what a jury is going to do. There is no law saying if you dont have forensic evidence that you cant be convicted of rape. Utter balls you are posting. People have been convicted with a lot less evidence then 10 direct witness accounts of a rape! You know as well as I know that 10 eye witness testimonies of you raping a chick will have every jury in the western world convicting you! Please post references of laws stating that forensic evidence is a must for a conviction! You wont be able to as there is none!

Where are you CC? Really interested to see how you attempt to spin yourself out of this one!

[triam]

DSR Iam not siding with CC here, but it goes something like this 1. Only eye witness no forensic evidence - Admissible and can be proclaimed guilty, and eye witnesses can be subjected to physological eval to evaluate their testimony 2. Only forensic evidence - Admissible and can be proclaimed guilty as long as the evidence is peer reviewable and done according to estabilshed scientific standards. 3. Both Forensic evidence and eye witness testimony contradicting each other - Eye witnesses need to undergo psychological evaluation and forensic evidence needs to be peer reviewed etc, if at the end of this both dont match, and if you have a decent defense lawyer you should expect a hung jury (although juries are unpredictable). But overall proper forensic evidence is given more credibility than eye witness testimonies.

[kumble_rocks]

DSR Iam not siding with CC here, but it goes something like this 1. Only eye witness no forensic evidence - Admissible and can be proclaimed guilty, and eye witnesses can be subjected to physological eval to evaluate their testimony 2. Only forensic evidence - Admissible and can be proclaimed guilty as long as the evidence is peer reviewable and done according to estabilshed scientific standards. 3. Both Forensic evidence and eye witness testimony contradicting each other - Eye witnesses need to undergo psychological evaluation and forensic evidence needs to be peer reviewed etc, if at the end of this both dont match, and if you have a decent defense lawyer you should expect a hung jury (although juries are unpredictable). But overall proper forensic evidence is given more credibility than eye witness testimonies.

I don't think anybody will dispute that ! Forensic evidence is given more credibility than eye witness except in Sharia countries .