Main Comments on the Argument (by me)
| Point | Comments | Paragraphs |
| Corpse was stuffed in travel suitcase | Prosecution states that I stuffed the body in a travel suitcase 13 hours after committing the murder. After 13 hours rigor mortis is completely established, so that is impossible. | 4, 68, 70 |
| Car spare part | Prosecution mentions several spare parts, but only one appears in the Charge Sheet.
Prosecution states the spare part(s) as confirmed to belong to my car, but that is false. |
34, 42, 81, 93 |
| Bill from petrol bunk | Prosecution states that my car number appears in said bill. That is false. They also affirm it was the only bill issued “for that time”, which is difficult to believe. | 75, 77 |
| Bottles used for storing petrol | Prosecution states said bottles were recovered. The statement is false. No bottles appear as part of the evidence. | 77 |
| Tardy missing person complaint | Cecile visited Kalasalingam every three weeks. She called once per week. Only after she did not call, I came to know something was amiss. | 59, 81 |
| Cecile took a bus from Krishnankovil to Kerala | She took a bus to Madurai. This is important, since she had to change buses at Madurai, and the body was found in Madurai. | 21, 93 |
| Recall of witnesses | Prosecution states recall was done as prayed for by them. Also that a contradicting statement of a witness after recall is reliable. Both statements are false. Prosecution admits PW 40 prepared the statements of some witnesses. | 6, 19, 37, 39 |
| Cecile wanted to take away Adela on 9.4.2012 | This is false, since Adela’s exams finished on 18.4.2012. Even Prosecution accepts she wanted to take the child only after the exams had finished. We have the letter from VPMM School and the emails to prove it. | 57, 58 |
| Cecile’s long term custody | Prosecution states that it started on May 2012. That is false, since it started on August 2012. That can be ascertained in our agreement for custody. | 93 |
| Shoulder bone was kept | Mistake by the Prosecution. Only skull and thigh bone were kept. | 20 |
| Reliability of witnesses | Prosecution tries to show hostile witnesses as unreliable based on inane remarks, like not identifying a make and model of a car after traveling only once in it. | 46 |
| Reliability based on gender | Prosecution states that a woman’s statement is more reliable than a man’s statement. That goes against law and against common sense. | 93 |
| Proceedings from Mexico are incomplete | Prosecution only submitted the initial accusation from Cecile against me at the Attorney General Office. Later, the case was decided in my favor, but they omitted that part.
Regarding child abuse, the accusation is not false, and the case is not closed, but in reserve. |
50, 60 |
| Lies by PW 39 | Prosecution relies strongly in the statements of PW 39. She told a lot of lies. If we show that she lied so much, judge will not accept her statements blindly. | 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 93 |
Complete List of Comments by Paragraph (by me)
| Paragraph | Statement | Comment |
| 4 | “In the early morning of the next day (…) put the body in travel suitcase” | After at least 13 hours, rigor mortis is complete (see paragraphs 68 and 70). |
| 6 | “recall of witnesses as prayed for by the prosecution was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court” | Statement is false. |
| 19 | “PW 40 (…) prepared the statements of PW5 and PW6” | Statements of witnesses are not to be prepared. They must be sent to Court as they were stated. |
| 20 | “the shoulder bone and the skull” | It was the thigh bone and the skull. |
| 21 | Cecile took a bus to Kerala. | She took a bus to Madurai. There she was going to take another bus.
This is important, because it was no direct bus. She had to change buses in Madurai (see also paragraph 93). |
| 32 | Results of DNA test cannot be achieved by tampering. | The results of such test can be achieved by tampering. |
| 34 | “some small spare parts” | Charge sheet mentions one single spare part (see paragraphs 42 and 93). |
| 37 | PW7 signed mahazhar at police station. When recalled, he changed his statement. | Recall of witness to change statement is not acceptable. |
| 39 | “if a witness changes his testimony after he is recalled, he cannot be said to be untruthful” | Not acceptable. |
| 42 | The spare parts have been marked as MO5 and MO2 | It is only one spare part (maybe there was a mistake when marking it?). See also paragraphs 34 and 93.
|
| 46 | “It is inconceivable that he [PW 36] would not know the make and model of the car” | By being a passenger in the car only once, how can he know make and model? Only a person deeply interested in cars would know it. |
| 47 | “The accused was apprehended on information, while driving the car” | Statement is false. I was taken from Kalasalingam University. |
| 49 | I pushed Cecile from the escalator of my house | My house does not have any escalator. PW 39 said a lot of lies, maybe we should point that out. |
| 50 | “The said proceedings were closed” | Proceedings regarding child abuse are not closed. They want to put me in jail to avoid further investigation regarding child abuse. |
| 51 | Cecile was forced to sign the agreement by the accused. | How can it be possible at a Court of Law? This is another lie by PW 39. |
| 52 | “had taken the child to Poland without the knowledge of her daughter” | I did not go to Poland. I came directly to India. Another lie by PW 39. |
| 52 | “found the accused through Skype” | Cecile and I never lost communication. |
| 52 | When Cecile reached Poland, came to know I had come to India. | I cannot change the place of my post-doctoral fellowship. I came directly to India. |
| 53 | Cecile obtained a scholarship for Kalamandalam University. | A scholarship cannot be obtained on the spot. She had requested the scholarship since 2009. |
| 53 | I prevented Cecile from seeing her daughter. | Statement is false. |
| 57 | Cecile was supposed to take the child on 9.4.2012 | Documents from the school prove this is false, as my daughter was in exams till 18.4.2012. |
| 58 | “take the child with her, back to Kerala, after the exams” | Exactly. Exams finished on 18.4.2012. She was supposed to pick up the child on 20.4.2012. |
| 59 | Missing person complaint put on 15.4.2012 | She visited every three weeks. Called once a week. Only after 6 days I realized she was missing (see also paragraph 81). |
| 60 | “violent conduct of the accused” | The document from Cecile’s complaint in Mexico is incomplete. Case was decided in my favor. After that, we signed the agreement. |
| 60 | “antecedent conduct” of the accused | If they talk about bad character, we may submit the testimonies I have regarding my good character… |
| 61 | “constant fights about custody initiated by the accused” | I never initiated a fight about custody. They must prove this statement. |
| 64 | “As per the Charge Sheet” Cecile was “asking the accused to hand over” Adela | That is only words. Where is the evidence? We have the emails to prove the opposite. |
| 68 | “PW 23 (…) confirmed, on recall, that the body could be stuffed into a suitcase if rigor mortis had not been fully established” | Rigor mortis will be complete after 4 hours (see paragraphs 4 and 70). |
| 70 | “In the early morning of the next day, on 10.4.2012, wrapped the body in plastic paper, and tied it with a rope, and put it in a travel suitcase” | Prosecution admits a lapse of at least 13 hours: from 12:00 noon to 1:00 am. Rigor mortis would have been completely established (see paragraphs 4 and 68). |
| 71 | “accused always would return to college within 1 hour” | Within 20 minutes, but always entered through the other gate. |
| 75 | “bill with the car number” from petrol bunk | The said bill does not have any car number (see also paragraph 77). |
| 75 | “this was the only bill issued by them for that time” | Very hard to believe that they issued only one bill (see also paragraph 77). |
| 77 | “bill with the car number” | Again it is mentioned, but the said bill does not have any car number (see also paragraph 75). |
| 77 | “the bottles said to have contained petrol was also recovered” | Statement is false. |
| 77 | “only bill issued by them for that time” | Again it is mentioned, but it is very hard to believe that they issued only one bill (see also paragraph 75). |
| 78 | “recovery of petrol receipt and the seizure of the car are based on extrajudicial confession of the accused” | Statement is false. |
| 80 | “accused unusually did not return after dropping off the child at school” | I always entered through the other gate. Every single day. |
| 80 | “There can be no other explanation except that the accused committed the murder” | Chain is completely broken, how can there be no other explanation? |
| 81 | “spare parts (…) belonging to his car” | There is only one spare part, and it has not been established that it belongs to my car. |
| 81 | “absence of the accused for unusually long periods” | Statement is false. |
| 81 | “tardy missing person’s report” | She came every three weeks, called once a week. Only when she did not call I realized she was missing (see also paragraph 59).
|
| 93 | “it is necessary to apply the standard of a reasonable woman rather than that of a reasonable man” | Good character and bad character have no gender. Reasonableness has no gender. |
| 93 | “deceased was determined to assert her right to (…) long term custody from May 2012.” | Long term custody started on August 2012, as can be ascertained in our Agreement. |
| 93 | deceased got in the bus to Kerala on 9.4.2012 | No. She got in the bus to Madurai. This is important because the body was found in Madurai (see also paragraph 21). |
| 93 | Deceased “followed the accused all the way to India” | False. We agreed to come here. |
| 93 | “Ford Fusion Car spare parts, tyre tracks, gear box cover, and the spare tyre cover as identified by witnesses as belonging to the accused” | No spare tyre cover is mentioned anywhere. There is only one spare part, and it has not been identified as belonging to my car (see also paragraphs 34 and 42). |
Argument
