Aarushi murder case: Claims and counter-claims

February 9th, 2011 - 10:28 pm ICT by IANS  

Aarushi Talwar New Delhi, Feb 9 (IANS) The Central Bureau of Investigation’s closure report in the Aarushi Talwar murder case lists circumstantial evidence that points to her parents alleged involvement in the crime and the subsequent cover-up: * The murder scene had been heavily “dressed up”, which could only have been done by her parents.

* A bottle of Scotch whisky was found on the dining table. But according to the CBI, any intruder would not have had sufficient time to consume liquor on the May 15-16, 2008 night of the murder.

* A lie detector test at the Forensic Sciences Laboratory in Gandhinagar revealed that Rajesh and Nupur Talwar used to lock Aarushi’s bedroom at night.

* The door could be opened from inside without a key, but once it was shut, it could not be opened from outside without a key.

* A number of circumstances indicate the involvement of the parents in the crime and the cover-up.

* The key to her room was with Nupur Talwar, who could not explain how and why it was lying in the lobby.

* Attempt to fix the autopsy report to ensure there is no mention of rape.

* Rajesh Talwar’s brother, Dinesh Talwar, tried to influence Sunil Dohre of Noida Hospital who was conducting autopsy.

* The Talwars did not tell the CBI about the golf club that was suspected to have been used to kill Aarushi and the family’s domestic help Hemraj.

* There was no sign of forced entry either into her room or Talwars’ house.

* Maid Bharti found Aarushi’s body wrapped in a white sheet.

* The terrace door, which always remained open, was found to be locked the day after the crime. The Talwars declined to identify Hemraj’s body that was found on the terrace.

* Cuts on the necks of the two victims could have been caused only by a professional trained to use a scalpel.

In his defence, Rajesh Talwar filed a protest petition in which he countered the CBI allegations in the closure report:

* The CBI’s conclusions were based on “presumptions, conjectures and surmises” and “not substantiated or supported by true and actual facts”.

* There was need to conduct a touch DNA test on the bloody handprints found on the terrace, Aarushi’s school bag, a whisky bottle, the key of her room, her cellphone and her clothes.

* Dinesh Talwar never made Sunil Dohre talk to someone on the phone on the pretext that the person on the other end was head of forensics at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

* The investigative agencies had access to the house, garage and loft which was kept in its original condition till May 2009. None of the circumstances stated in CBI’s closure report was ever an issue with the earlier teams.

* He was not a professional golf player and some of the clubs were never used by him at all.

* Hemraj’s autopsy said that he had not consumed dinner as the meal was found in the kitchen, the next morning. It meant that either he was expecting someone or someone had arrived suddenly.

* Replying to a claim by the CBI that there was a plywood partition between Aarushi and his room, he said: “The rooms are separated by a regular brick wall and a door. The brick wall has a plywood lamination over it to match the door.”

Special CBI magistrate Preeti Wednesday rejected the CBI’s closure report and ordered that Rajesh and Nupur Talwar be tried for Aarushi’s murder. The court summoned the couple to appear before it Feb 28.

Related Stories

    Posted in Uncategorized |