by Basava Premanand


Mr. Moreno's comments appear in bold red face, and mine are in regular case black.



GM wrote: First of all, Premanand incorrectly quotes me. Premanand cited me as saying, "Basava Premanand, author of Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room, speculates and draws conclusions by using newspaper clippings! Basava Premanand, India's leading rationalist and skeptic, irrationally and septically speculates on what happened on June 6th, 1993". The actual quote is, "Basava Premanand, India's leading rationalist and skeptic, irrationally and septically speculates on what happened on June 6th, 1993". Premanand's quote of "Basava Premanand, author of Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room, speculates and draws conclusions by using newspaper clippings!" was not taken directly from the text to my article. It was taken from the metatag title information, which is not part of the actual article, but search-engine information. Consequently, I will address my newspaper clippings allegation under the appropriate section.

Reply : What a petty hair-splitter Moreno is! I have not incorrectly quoted him. I have quoted only what I found on his web site on 29th June 2005, which I got copied in hand print by Murali Krishna Yachendra to prove my fraud and given to me at Nellore in June, 2005, as I do not know the working of a computer. Whether it was "metatag" (this word is not in my dictionary) title information or not, it is there at the top of his article. If he did not want it to be a part of his response he ought not to have put it on his web site.
The web site I mentioned was as found in his comments. And why he has made it a non-operable link he only can answer. His opinion that consequently it appears I am purposefully trying to misdirect people to the wrong page (which he has done on all his other responses as well) speaks much of his changing his web site. Was it because he did not want people to read his deception series that he made it non-operable? When I have faithfully recorded every word of his article and the web sites he mentioned in the article, why need I misdirect to a wrong page? GM has never complained that his comments were faked by me.

GM's Response 1 : Premanand said, "My writ petition in High Court etc., was only for a CBI enquiry and not to a court where I have to present witnesses and prove the case." Of course, the big question is why Premanand did not file a court case if he had so many material witnesses who uncovered evidence to SSB's complicity in the 1993 police shootings?
As a matter of fact, at Premanand's Writ Petition is provided. The entire purpose of the Writ Petition was to provide evidence that would warrant a CBI investigation due to other agencies acting unlawfully, failing to execute jurisdiction or being negligent in their public duty. In his Writ Petition, Premanand had to show that he had a legal basis that warranted a CBI investigation into the police shootings that occurred on June 6th 1996, that resulted the deaths of 6 people.
In the writ petition, Premanand made 26 affirmations. Out of these 26 affirmations, 1-4, 6-8, most of 9, 10-12 and 18 had absolutely nothing to do with the June 6th 1993 events. It is evident that Premanand foresaw that his request might be dismissed and thereby tried to make as many irrelevant claims as he could (in case his writ petition was dismissed, which it was).
Premanand said, "My writ petition in High Court etc., was only for a CBI enquiry and not to a court where I have to present witnesses and prove the case." The purpose of the writ petition was to provide evidence that would show that the police were negligent and failed to act. If the newspaper reporters provided affidavits to the evidence they claim they found, this would prove that the police were negligent and failed to act on this evidence. If these newspaper reporters provided affidavits on behalf of Premanand, this would have all but guaranteed a bona fide warrant for a CBI inquiry. However, Premanand failed to obtain any affidavits or sworn testimonies from newspaper reporters about the evidence they claimed they uncovered. Why would Premanand withhold this crucial information in his Writ Petition if this would have all but guaranteed a CBI inquiry? Instead, Premanand cited Tal Brooke's book, Lord of The Air (written 30+ years ago, whose alleged witnesses have never come forward to corroborate Tal Brooke's stories). One of Premanand's annexures was the following "12) In fact, Tal Brooke one of the Baba's closest American devotees, has revealed the seamy side of the Baba's empire when he denounces the latter as a 'hermaphrodite & a sexual pervert' in his book 'Lord of the Air'". Oh, that sounds like a rational thing to do; cite a book, but forget the newspaper reporters who claimed to have uncovered actual evidence relevant to the purpose of the writ petition!

Reply : Read 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' Vol.1 pages 16, 17 and 18. on whether the directions sought was for CBI investigation.
As court cases cannot lead to CBI enquiry and it is the duty of the police to investigate and produce witnesses in a criminal case so his big question - why I did not file a court case if there were so many material witnesses - is irrelevant. A legal notice was sent to the Home Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi on 23.6.1993 documented on pages 3 to 6 in Vol 1 of the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room". The evidence necessary for CBI investigation has been provided in the writ petition and the writ petition was admitted at the time of filing proves that I am competent to file a PIL and the writ petition contained proof necessary for the admission of the same.

The Writ petition contains only 20 affirmations and not 26 as claimed by him. I have to prove my credentials if my PIL has to be admitted. 6 to 11 are given to prove the precedence of SSB for the need of CBI enquiry. No.12 to 20 is the affirmation for seeking CBI enquiry. It is his imagination that I foresaw that my request might be dismissed and thereby tried to make as many irrelevant claims as I could. If they were irrelevant it would not have helped me to go up to Supreme Court. If my affirmations were false my writ petition would have been dismissed at the time of admission itself. Who but Moreno would fail to see this point? I have already explained that without proper evidence the writ petition would have been dismissed at the time of admission itself. But the Judge has accepted my affidavit that there was cause for admission.

Even without affidavits from the newspaper reporters the court has accepted that there was proof that the police were negligent and failed to act. In PIL it is not necessary to provide affidavits from others when the court has accepted as evidence the newspaper reports. I have not withheld any crucial information in the newspapers as I have filed all the copies of the newspapers which I could collect. Tal Brooks's book had to be cited because there were complaints of sexual abuse of students by SSB. As far as the allegation that SSB was a hermaphrodite, SSB has himself admitted that he is the avatar of Shiva and Shakti - ie. in both male and female forms.

In short though my prayer for CBI enquiry was not accepted, I have achieved fully what I wanted by filing the P.I.L. It was to get confirmed the CB-CID report on the Murders and suitable action taken against the accused mentioned there and the Supreme Court also confirmed it. The PIL was filed as we came to know that the government was stealthily planning to close the file on a report by the R.D.O. Moreno finds difficulty in accepting the reality of government intervention in processes, and would like instead to 'shoot the messenger'.

GM's Response 2 : The article in question, The Week, was published in 1993 and written by a person who only gives his/her initials as "MRD". This anonymous author failed to cite any references as to where he/she obtained the information used to write this article (which is probably why Premanand likes it). It is abundantly clear that the author gathered information from newspaper clipping, the FIR and from mental imaginations. For example, "MRD" claimed that the stairs that lead to SSB room were "wooden stairs" (it is well known they are cement). Another quote said, "Said a police officer: 'There was no competent senior officer. Someone with presence of mind would not have reacted like that. They just became trigger-happy.'" This quote sounds very similar to the one made in The Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad (26-6-1993), which said, "Thus the entire evidence was wiped out in a matter of seconds by the trigger-happy policemen." Consequently, this poorly referenced article provides no proof as to what happened on June 6th 1993.

Reply : GM had better write to "The Week" if it provides no proof as to what happened on June 6th 1993 and if they do not answer take them to court. When GM claims to have read the article, he is hiding the fact that the article was authored by M.D.Riti in Puttaparthi and Bangalore and Stanley Theodore in Hyderabad. (see pages 213 to 222 Vol II of Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room. There are three Box News, the first by Jayashree Ramamohan and the other two by MDR. Here also GM has mistaken "MDR" as "MRD". Anyone who has read the article would know who is MDR. M.D.Riti is not an anonymous author and newspaper reporters are not duty bound to give any evidences to people. GM's sentence "which is probably why Premanand likes it" is his way of imagining things so as to confuse people, and typifies his frequent habit of assuming worst-case interpretations of the words of SSB's critics.

When GM states: "It is abundantly clear that the author gathered information from newspaper clippings the F.I.R and from mental imaginations" he has not mentioned from which news clippings and what mental imaginations. It was not taken from F.I.R (page 336 to 338 Vol 1). I am wondering how abundantly clear GM is on this. Just his assertion without evidence of any kind, again. He has not quoted the full sentence "and he had retired to his bedroom, climbing up the wooden stairs and to a simple dinner". It is certainly not "well known that the stairs are of cement". However, whether this ill-designed twisting, narrow stair was originally of wood or cement would surely be a major point in GM's brilliant analysis of his own imaginings and concocted deceptions to refute that Sai Baba was involved?

The statement of a police officer is very pertinent. GM has not questioned why they had to kill the victims with a shower of over 30 bullets when shooting below the torso only to injure them would have been sufficient. Then the whole incident could have been cleared up, as to whether the others were stabbed or poisoned beforehand. For a change, let GM get to the crux of matters, rather than the periphery where he sticks! GM's wish-fulfilling assumption that this poorly referenced article provided no proof as to what happened on June 6th , 1993, as he is trying to save SSB he will not see proof by genuine reasoning and all proofs would be 'poorly referenced' to him. If these articles in the newspapers did not provide proof, the law enforcement department utterly failed to examine the newspaper reporters because they did not want the truth to be brought out. If there was no iota of truth in the articles in newspapers, then the legal luminaries like Justice Bhagawati (long a Sai devotee and on the Board of the Sai Central Trust), Balakrishna Erady, Ranganath Mishra etc. would not have left them scot free without taking legal action for defamation.

GM's Reference No.3 : Click Here to view the site (which broadcast the Secret Swami documentary) which said, "...and at the age of 73 he is the oldest member of India's International Brotherhood of Magicians". Did the BBC misreport the facts about Premanand? This was the same BBC that investigated and broadcast the Secret Swami documentary. If the BBC could not get even the most basic information right, about Basava Premanand, what does this say about the information on the Secret Swami documentary?

Reply : Always more meticulous and illogical diversions to try to run away from what are truly the main points in the whole issue (Moreno's "main points" are only split hairs with the aim to mislead and cover up facts!). The BBC did not misreport the facts about me. It is true that I am the oldest member of India IBM (Ring.261). This says nothing nor does it prove anything about the information on 'The Secret Swami'. But the site was not referenced in his article. 'The Secret Swami' documentary speaks very cogently for itself with direct interview and filming, including Dr Michael Goldstein, former AP Home Secretary V.P. B.Nair, and not forgetting Sai Baba (who lied openly there that he had brought up a lingam weighing three tons - what a farce!). GM would love to throw doubt on 'The Secret Swami', but he cannot find anything of the least importance. Even Dr. Goldstein failed in his attempt to sue the BBC, because they are not amateur investigators and get their facts right to insure no legal proceedings can affect them. Just ask Dr. Goldstein himself, or the BBC! Of course, this does not mean that a BBC documentary, or any other documentary cannot make an error, but it has been one of Moreno's attempts here and elsewhere to cast a slur on 'The Secret Swami' because he says that it got a date wrong in regard to the Rahm testimony. In doing this, Gerald Moreno's shabby intellectual dishonesty is more than apparent.

GM : The article by Beatrice Newbery had been published on Anti-Sai Sites since December 2000! It is "surprising" that Anti-Sai Activists did not contact Mrs. Newbery or "the newspaper 'The Independent-London' to check whether the article was without any mistakes". I guess Anti-Sai Activists failed to check "for reasons best known to" them. Consequently, Premanand is directly accusing Anti-Sai Activists of publishing misinformation on their sites. If Anti-Sai Activists fail to check the articles they publish on their sites, what does this say about their research? One would think that Anti-Sai Activists would at least accurately represent Premanand. Apparently, that is not the case.

Reply : Why should the various independent writers on and other websites contact Beatrice Newbery when the article is on me? What is surprising is that GM expects diverse people to contact persons unknown to them just in case there might be any mistakes... surprising since he doesn't ever check his own for mistakes. And why should not an article be posted for the benefit of public discussion or debate? Besides, there is no single group of 'Anti-Sai Activists' but several loose groupings with their different views and agendas, whereas there are only two in Moreno's anonymous 'group', neither of whom even dare to stand forth with their addresses or other proofs of identity or qualifications; him and Lisa de Witt! But where am I "directly accusing" anyone (other than GM) for "publishing misinformation on their sites"? (GM himself underlined the word "directly" - which again typifies most of his overblown claims). Publishing an article from a newspaper does not need any research, but when someone is criticising the article one should do real research. GM seems to imagine that he has researched even the article in The Week (let alone independent research of any kind). But GM stated that this article was authored by an anonymous person, when their names were there for anyone to see! I do not know why they should represent me except that they publish articles by me on their web site. His assumption that it is not the case is meaningless.

How can we know that he was quoting site when he has not referenced the site? And when the word 'Guru Buster' was not in his reference? BBC has telecasted a documentary titled "Guru Busters" with my co-operation in filming.

GM : Also, my references are for the main points made in my article. I did not reference every single point I made. As one will see, Premanand also does not reference every single point he makes. If Premanand wants me to reference everything, so should he.

Reply : It is good to know GM's confession that he did not reference every single point he made. As far as I can tell, I have referenced every single point I made In my complaints against the godmen which includes SSB, GM is not a relevant party because he cannot state what is his valid connection with these matters or whether he has a single qualification (not counting self-appointed amateur sleuth and fanatical defender of SSB and all his people).

GM's Reference No.4 : I did not get this information from Beatrice Newbery . Click Here to view the site (which investigated and broadcast the Secret Swami documentary) which said, "...and at the age of 73 he is the oldest member of India's International Brotherhood of Magicians". View the previous response for a fuller explanation.

Reply : So why did GM not contact Beatrice Newbery himself then? GM's previous response has been properly replied to already. He does not understand the difference in criticising me and my articles based on the articles of others, eg. Newbery. He understands only what suits him, and his purpose is clearly to mislead and create confusion (unless he is just thick, pure and simple). The mistakes he is pointing out about Beatrice and have no connection with the six murders in Sai Baba's Bedroom, except in vain to try to prove that I am a fraud (as he constantly vainly tries to prove of any number of others who criticise Sai Baba) and so 'The Secret Swami' documentary is false. Laughable! Here also he has given the wrong web site, while the site is

GM's Reference No.5 : I got this information, once again, from the site (which investigated and broadcast the Secret Swami documentary). Click Here to view the following quote: "He is also convenor of the Federation of Indian Rationalists, head of the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and editor of a monthly journal." Apparently, the BBC made mistakes with basic information about Premanand (and who knows what other mistakes they made with the Secret Swami documentary). I will update my article to reflect the information that Premanand gives. Instead of making blind assumptions and saying that he "believes" that I took my information from Beatrice Newbery 's article, Premanand should have contacted me first to get the correct information. If Premanand feels that I should contact him, for every single detail, he should similarly contact me, for every single detail.

Reply : If GM did not get the information from Beatrice Newbery why did he reference her article and not site? In fact, did not investigate nor broadcast 'The Secret Swami'. It was BBC Channel 4 which first broadcast 'The Secret Swami'. The mistakes GM has pointed out in the articles by BBC Radio have nothing to do with BBC channel 4, nor are these mistakes grave ones (i.e. omitting the word 'Association' from the Federation of Indian Rationalist Association or the word 'Indian Committee' from the 'Indian Committee for scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal'. GM is evidently very hard up for points with which to obfuscate and hair-split further!)

GM's Reference no. 6 : Nowhere, in the Writ Petition or other Court Documents, was Dr. P.M. Bhargava's name cited. Consequently, Premanand's assumptions (about the 1993 police shootings) were the result of his speculations by playing the role of a forensic expert, for which he has no known education. Although Premanand may be able to get "opinions" from Dr. P.M. Bhargava, it is indeed suspicious that Premanand failed to cite an alleged forensic expert either in the Writ Petition or anywhere else for that matter. Again, if Premanand had a sworn affidavit by a forensic expert, this would have strengthened his case for a CBI inquiry. Premanand did not provide this type of crucial information, yet he wonders why his request for a CBI inquiry was dismissed!
Furthermore, the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology is not a forensic center (Ref. 1). Since the CCMB does deal with genetic data and DNA (which was never used in the police shootings investigation), Premanand's citing the CCMB is nothing more than a smoke-screen. CCMB is a modern biology center whose research can be used by forensics, but is not a forensic center. Dr. PM Bhargava is a molecular biologist, not a forensic expert. The most that a molecular biologist can do is DNA fingerprinting, which was (as far as I am aware) never a factor in the investigation.

Reply : GM munches the same thing over and over again in each of his deception series article with no relevance to the specific subject in each of my articles. The fellowship given to me by NCSTC, Department of Science and Technology Government of India though without degrees would prove that I am as good as if not better than a degree holder. I am invited to participate in the 3rd National Teacher's Science Conference to present my paper to chart out the curriculum for children. I am wondering why GM considers that without degrees no one can know or learn things but for him, who has no known education either. To read a post mortem report one does not need to be a forensic expert. These reports are for evaluation by jurors, judges and other persons without forensic qualifications. I have also met and discussed with Dr.C.P. Venkatanarayana and other doctors who conducted the post mortem. There is no need to mention to a forensic expert or to get a sworn affidavit from a forensic expert as the post mortem report itself is clear. The crucial information is in the post mortem report itself I have not wondered why my prayer for a CBI enquiry was dismissed. I only wonder why, although the High Court and Supreme Court accepted the report of CB-CID, the Andhra government did not take action according to their directions but closed the case on a confidential report by the RDO which was rejected by the courts.
GM states that CCMB is a modern biology centre whose research can be used by forensic centre, it is necessary that the scientists in CCMB should know about forensic tests. DNA finger printing was necessary to test the blood on the floor to see if the blood was from Radha Krishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan as hundreds of bottles of blood were missing in SSB Superspeciality Hospital at Puttaparthi at the time of murders.

What is the need to mention Dr.P.M. Bhargava's name when the writ petition is for CBI enquiry? I have not stated that I have no education though I did not attend schools the fact is I have learnt things for my work and have a library of about 70,000 books. What education does GM happen to have and, if any, when and from where? Why does he never answer us on this?

GM : I never claimed to be a forensic expert, nor do I pretend to be one by making blind assumptions based on pictures and documents, many years after the fact, to which I was never personally present.

Reply : Obviously GM is no forensic expert - no need to tell us - but he does make blind assumptions (including about the forensic issue) based on newspaper articles and documents he has commented on in respect of the post mortem reports! He has not yet shown that his replies and responses are based on sound evidence of any kind. GM's replies and responses prove that he is making blind assumptions. Since he is not a forensic or even medical expert of any kind, why did GM question the doctor's finding on the post mortem report of Radha Krishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan when the doctor wrote "would appear" while on other 4 reports the statements were specific -"died of shock? This was blind assumption when he has not checked other post mortem reports of Dr.Venkatanarayana whether he writes "would appear" on every post-mortem report?

GM : Premanand said "I have copied about thousand pages of GM's vilifying articles...". My site is only composed of around 260 pages (minus the Google and Forum caches and screen captures, which were not written by me). I do not have "about a thousand pages" on my site. Why is Premanand resorting to such bloated exaggerations? If Premanand used his wits, he would have known that, in the USA, we do not go by "standard" but by "grade". I know this is getting terribly redundant, but on the site, they refer to him as "The irreverent Mr Premanand". Mrs. Newbery also said, "his acts have become increasingly irreverent". Consequently, Premanand's "irreverence" is well known.

Reply : 'Terribly redundant' is certainly a fitting description of how GM's articles and his website will be viewed more and more by readers. Stating that I "resort to bloated exaggerations", GM thus makes a huge point of me counting the materials of his website differently to him! But I have hard-copied about 1000 pages! This includes the materials GM now wants to see as irrelevant to his articles (googles and forum caches and screen captures click here materials and references he has quoted without which his articles are not actually complete). Is not GM's irrelevant and irreverent point-making what is really 'terribly redundant'?
On the 4 site they report: "the irreverent Mr.Premanand", Newbery also said, "his acts become increasingly irreverent". The site is not and the correct site I have quoted earlier. GM has not quoted fully the sentences which would have explained why she called me irreverent. She called me "irreverent Mr.Premanand, India's leading Guru buster", because I was fighting the gurus who are revered by many and exposing any character who pretend his magic tricks are miracles. How could GM have failed to realise this, even while blinded by his own negative and destructive agendas? Whereas, Beatrice Newbery is very clear. GM has suppressed the parts of the sentence "over the years, his acts have become increasingly irreverent, ridiculing every trickster by name from the smallest "baba" upwards. Blind, gullible reverence for his badly flawed guru has got GM into an untenable and relentless fix.

GM's Response No.7 : The full quote reads "His parents took the unorthodox view that all religions were the same. When it was time to enrol Premanand at the local school, they refused to fill in his religion or caste on the application form. It was the start of a rebellious school career, at the end of which Premanand was thrown out for joining the student movement for independence. When a teacher came to his house asking Premanand's father to beg for a pardon, he refused on the grounds that his son had done nothing wrong. Instead, from the age of 12, Premanand was given an imaginative schooling at home. His father had a laboratory in the garden shed which he used for concocting products for his various soap and ink manufacturing businesses." As one can see, Mrs. Newbery said that at the age of 12 he was given an "imaginative schooling at home". To me, this means he was "home taught" starting at the age of 12, because he had to be thrown out of school prior to being home taught. Premanand does not dispute that he was home taught from the age of 12, so my comments are not incorrect.

Reply : GM's comments were incorrect. The question is about the truthfulness of GM's former statement: "Basava Premanand was thrown out of school at the age of 12 due to political dispute in which his parents refused to fill in a religion or caste on his school application form". My being thrown out of school had nothing to do with having originally "refused to fill in the religion" as start of "a rebellious school career", as GM tries to suggest.

GM wants to class me as 'home taught' but this is not the same as "imaginative schooling at home". But his assumptions which I have quoted above may lead one to believe that I never went to school. It has been posted that GM was himself a college dropout, can he deny this with adequate proof? His comments about me are only derogatory arguments ad hominem, while they also incorrectly mix up two incidents as one. Moreover they are irrelevant to the specific article.

GM's Response No.8 : It is a fact that mercury poisoning can cause psychological disturbances (Ref. 2). I did not say that Premanand had psychological disturbances. I specifically said that mercury fumes can cause psychological disturbances (a known fact). If Premanand is unaware that mercury is a poison and it can cause numerous psychological disturbances, that is his fault for not properly educating himself (despite receiving home schooling from a "B.Sc teacher" up to the "B.Sc. standard").

Reply : When GM states that he, "did not say Premanand had psychological disturbances", what did he then mean when he authoritatively stated "exposing himself directly to toxic mercury fumes (which can cause psychological disturbances)"? By this he is making a strong kind of unfair and wholly unreasonable and false implication against me. This can be seen to be his method through and through.

It is a fact that mercury poisoning can cause not only psychological disturbances, but also kidney problems and death. Has GM verified whether I was unaware that mercury is a poison when he "imagined that is his fault for not properly educating himself (despite receiving home schooling from a B.Sc., teacher up to the B.Sc., standard." Does this not prove that with GM's wild imaginings going reverse as his main purpose is to create confusion to show that I am worse than an ordinary illiterate who is trying to expose SSB without any base? This has no relevance to the subject of the article "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room". At least illiterates have more common sense.

GM Response No. 9 : Mercury does not stay in liquid form. It evaporates into vapors that are inhaled and can cause poisoning. Guess Premanand is not aware of this basic scientific fact, despite being educated up to the equivalent of a "B.Sc standard"?

Reply : Why does GM guess that I am not aware of this basic fact, despite being educated up to the equivalent of a B.Sc standard? Almost every adult person nowadays knows that mercury is a dangerous poison. But GM is extremely hard up for any points to score! When he has stated that he does not pretend to be making blind assumptions based on pictures and documents many years after the fact, to which he was never personally present. Anyone can find that all GM's replies and response are blind assumptions and, just like his guru, he does not practice what he preaches.

GM's Response No.10 : Premanand just admitted he handled toxic mercury by collecting it and pouring it into a bottle! Undeniably, there were still traces of mercury on the broken thermometer and on the aluminum plate. Premanand directly exposed himself to the residual mercury when he cleaned the aluminum plate (which held the broken thermometer). Premanand even admitted that there was residual mercury on the plate because he claimed the tamarind reacted with the mercury.
Amusingly enough, Premanand said "It is surprising that GM did not conduct experiment to find if it was true to contradict. If he knew a little science and did the experiment, he could have added that my experiments are also false." Unlike Premanand, I have enough scientific knowledge to know better than to expose myself to a known poison that can be absorbed through direct contact and through inhalation. Click Here to see the protocol for cleaning up mercury spills (under 2 tablespoons).
At: Premanand said, "When you go to buy Sai Baba's pictures from the samiti, they first make a pretence of wiping the frame. Actually they are anointing it with mercuric chloride solution. When the aluminum frame dabbed with this comes into contact with moisture a gray powder mistaken for holy ash falls out." This comment only serves to fuel valid doubts regarding Premanand's scientific knowledge regarding mercury. Mercuric Chloride is a highly toxic poison that is life-endangering and can cause numerous physical symptoms resulting in death (Ref. 3). However, Premanand speaks nonchalantly about mercuric chloride, claiming that the Sai Samithi is dabbing such a poison on aluminum frames just to make it appear as if vibuthi is manifesting. Touching mercuric chloride can result in burns, allergic reactions and is absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream. Even in the case of aluminum oxide, it is a known irritant (Ref. 4), a neurotoxicant (Ref. 5) and ranks in the 50% - 75% level for a hazard ranking (Ref. 6).

Reply : When GM states that 'Premanand just admitted he handled toxic mercury by collecting it and pouring it into a bottle', he is guessing without knowing how I had handled it, amusingly enough! The same goes for: "undeniably, there were still traces of mercury on the broken thermometer and on the aluminium plate". As if mercury sticks on the glass, a fact that even GM should know! GM has not questioned me as to how I handled mercury when he stated that I was directly exposed myself to the residual mercury when he cleaned the aluminium plate (which held the broken thermometer). Without being present how did he guess that I was directly exposed? Why did he state 'residual mercury' when it was only unseen globules of mercury when he does not know how I handled the mercury. This happened more than sixty years ago.

GM stated: "unlike Premanand, I have enough scientific knowledge to know better than to expose myself to known poison that can be absorbed through direct contact and through inhalation". Yet GM has not explained how he would react when the mercury is shifted from a thermometer or a bottle. Does he mean to say that he was not exposed to mercury so far? When the research done in the US states that people who go for Indian Medicines which contains more mercury all Indians would have been psychologically affected. If this is true most of the people who are treated with Indian medicines going to godmen men like SSB are psychologically affected? At NIMHANS, Bangalore, I am informed that many of the patients are SSB's devotees."

Re ply : When GM poses as an expert in mercury poisoning, he should know how much mercury can cause poison by absorbing through direct contact and through inhalation and, if he held to science, he would have tried at least one experiment to prove that my findings was false.
Most probably, GM has mercury-silver amalgam fillings in his teeth, but does he know how much of this is released into his body daily through chemical reactions in the mouth, or when his dentist bores into it making mercury gaseous? Experiments have shown the considerable amount involved in many cases, and therefore the use of mercury amalgam is no longer advised in many countries and major compensations are now being paid even by the government in some countries to dental assistants who have handled silver-mercury amalgam for decades. The toxic effect of inorganic mercury is therefore not so immediate and great that whole populations can have used it for most of the last century in dental amalgam, which is not entirely stable and which is subject to many chemical agents from food.

GM stated: "I am not aware of any incidents of allergic reactions, irritation or toxicity due to the ingestion or application of vibuthi. Consequently, Premanand's speculations fail, on all counts, to explain vibuthi manifestations (most of which forms on glass, not on the frames).

Reply : What GM refers to is not a comment but what was really happening on a book presented to a girl by SSB whom SSB had promised that he will get her married to one Murali and knowing the plan of SSB he married another girl. Still she believed that Murali would divorce his wife and marry her because of SSB's promise. I was invited to their house by the parents to counsel her and explain the formation of grey matter forming on the book. It was found that it was herself doing the trick. The book had an aluminium cover. GM's comment that "this comment only serves to fuel valid doubts regarding Premanand's scientific knowledge regarding mercury" is misplaced. It proves the fraud played by godmen on his or her followers who believe that what is forming is vibhuti. She had some psychological problems too.
How can anyone know of any incident of allergic reactions, irritation or toxicity due to ingestion or inhalation from the grey matter unless the persons know that it is not vibhuti but a chemical?

As GM stated my "speculation" does not fail on any counts to explain vibhuti manifestations (most of which forms on glass and not on frames). How vibhuti seems to have formed is explained in the article itself which GM has quoted earlier in his first reply referenced in his comments ( : deception October 2004) and my reply. When he has commented on the article in Indian Skeptic explanation of miracles people may believe that he has read it fully. Faking on explanation of vibhuti forming on coins explanation (b), to the correct one is explanation (c) proves how good GM is in faking. This is what I explained in (c) vibhuthi produced from Sathya Sai Baba's photographs:

Vibhuti produced from Satya Sai Baba's photographs: Actually vibhuti does not fall constantly from the framed photographs of Satya Sai Baba. Unless one removes a portion of vibuthi sticking to the glass, this cannot be known. What is done is, ash is mixed in starch solution and sprayed on the glass, except the face. The man in whose house vibhuti is forming on the photos does not permit any one to go near them or touch them. They say that if any one touches them with an intention to verify the truth the vibhuti stops forming! What is sometimes done is that the top of the photo frame is hollow and is filled with vibhuti, while the glass is fitted loose. When the ceiling fan is switched on, the ash stored in the photo frame top flies and people think that really vibhuti is falling from the photos. This could be exposed by removing a part of the vibhuti pasted on the glass and see if it again forms there and by stopping the fan. In one house of an advocate at R.S.Puram, Coimbatore where this claim was made, I had to wait for more than two hours as there was power cut and only when power came, I was taken to the prayer room to see the vibhuti falling from the photos of the godman. When I came out the fan was put off, but I suddenly turned around to see if vibhuti was still coming from the photos, it had stopped!

GM also wrote : Regarding Said (Afshin) Khorramshahgol, Afshin portrayed himself as suffering trauma, due to being sexually abused by SSB, however, Afshin turns right around and made jokes (Click Here) about masturbation, bestiality, having oral sex where there would not be "too many witnesses" and ascribing lewd, sexual comments to the Koran (despite allegedly being a Muslim)! Afshin also repeatedly and directly accused another person as being a "schizo", "pschizophrenic lunatic", "brainwashed idiot" and "paranoid and delusional". Premanand says absolutely nothing about Afshin's behavior or language! This speaks volumes about Premanand and his hypocrisy. I think the general public is perfectly entitled to know about this type of behavior from Afshin. Apparently, Premanand thinks this type of behavior is justified (Premanand implied he read my articles about Afshin). Click Here to view my Witnesses Page that talks about Afshin and his two responses to me.

Reply : Yet again Gerald Moreno defames Said as best he can and shows the utter lack human feeling that decency would require as a minimum. Said Khorramshahgol's replies to Moreno's mud-slinging and harassment of him speak eloquently for themselves. GM showed his usual cold-heatedness and disregard from the outset, trying as ever to cast suspicions on Said Khorramshahgol, just as he did towards many young men who stood forth to tell about - and so help to try to put a stop to - SSB's sexual abuses. How is it any of GM's business to set himself up as amateur psychologist, judge and jury to condemn Said's allegations and try to discredit him by continual evasions and infantile dirt-digging antipathy? As to hypocrisy: amazingly, GM already believed that Sai Baba was a sexual abuser, (on the FAQ of his former website where he openly declares this! (Click Here). Thereby Gerald Moreno condones and supports Sathya Sai Baba's sexual abuses through all GM's attacks on critics. Anyone without such an agenda of bitter hatefulness who reads both GM's and Said's e-mails will easily see which is the most honest and believable of the two.

GM's Response .11 : At Premanand said, "We have published the scanned copy of the delivery order for dispatch of 9 tons of Vibhuthi (Holy ash) from Palani to Puttaparthi. Nine tons cost Rs. 58,000/- Sai Baba sells 100 grams of vibhuthi packed for Rs. 5/-. Outside in Puttaparthi it is sold for Rs. 10/- thus making a profit of Rs. 3.5 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs on a lorry load." The vibuthi sold outside the ashram is in no manner connected with the vibuthi sold inside the ashram. Premanand did not say if the vibuthi order was being sent specifically to the ashram, or if it was being sent to vendors outside the ashram (both are in the village of Puttaparthi). Premanand derived speculative numbers based, in part, on the selling price outside the ashram (which does not reflect on the ashram, as they do not deal with outside vendors). The vibuthi that is sold in the ashram, is delivered in large plastic bags. The vibuthi is then individually packaged in high quality, white paper that is covered with yellow plastic (that has been monogrammed) and wrapped in red thread. I have seen the packaging process for myself (which is usually done at the vibuthi booth, in public). Premanand's estimates do not include the packaging material, storage facility, transportation costs and other related costs in supplying vibuthi to devotees. Undoubtedly, there will be some profit. But Premanand is trying to exaggerate the numbers, without taking into consideration other basic, common-sense expenses.

Reply : Unless GM explains with documentation what he refers to as "the basic common-sense expenses" his assumption that I am trying to exaggerate the numbers will not be believed by anyone. He niggles on about so many trivial details like prices, but conveniently overlooks the central fact - that the vibuthi sold in the ashram is produced in Palani, not in any way by SSB, which devotees are mostly believe and left to imagine. GM is to be thanked at least for informing that those who work for SSB, his Trusts and his sales department are on paid salaries. I thought the SSB devotees staying in Prasanthi Nilayam were doing voluntary Seva to their god.

GM's statement affirms what is well known, that vibhuti is sold inside the ashram. Many hundreds of kilos have been sold there. This means this vibhuti is not created by SSB. When the name of the recipient is clear on the delivery order issued by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax authorities, what is the need for me to specifically mention to the ashram or to the vendors? Yes this is the way GM tries to confuse readers, when the scanned copy is published in my book, 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room', page XXVIII. The sum of Rs. 3.5 lakhs reflects on the ashram. Good, GM is conversant with all the things happening in the ashram. Does the ashram pay for the packing materials, storage facility, transportation costs and other related costs in supplying vibhuti to devotees? Does GM know that when SSB Trusts are registered and given tax exemptions, they cannot make profit? When he states "undoubtedly there will be some profit" why doesn't he come out as to how much profit they make, when he poses as being so conversant with every thing in the ashram?

By comparison, I do not benefit from the tax, duty and other financial exemptions that SSB's institutions do, because I am not a registered Charitable Trust. The price of 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' even now is still Rs. 400/- and 40 US $. The life members still get 50% discount. The price Rs. 150/- and 15 US $ was the prepublication scheme which is published in the Indian Skeptic. Here GM does not want to calculate the travel expenses for investigation and collecting documents, printing charges, thick paper cost having used 80 gram paper and imported art paper for the photographs and imported art board for the cover, binding charges, postage which is not charged to subscribers, the type-setting charges, making of master plates for printing 50% discount to the Indian and overseas life members etc. I hardly get 5% on the sale of my books. I am wondering why GM instead does not question the high price charged on SSB books when sold overseas. While posturing as a "neutral researcher", why does GM never make the slightest criticism of SSB and his organisation, while being niggardly in all things concerning SSB's critics?

Calculating all these expenses I did not make any profit. The number of copies printed is there on the book as per the declaration U/S 18 of P& R Act 1867 which any one can see. But why is this declaration not there on SSB books when SSB collects the price as donations? It is GM is hiding and no sales were made at US$40/- except less than 10 copies. Yes what has SSB to hide when I calculated 3.5 lakhs profit on each lorry load without giving the real expenses when his is a charitable Trust enjoying all tax exemption? According to law in India the accounts of Charitable Trusts are public and any one can ask for the income and expenditure a/c and Balance sheet.

GM's reference 12 : Actually, I made a mistake in my calculations. I said that Premanand was "making a little over a 300% profit". Actually, "300%" should have read "400%". 150 Rupees is approximately $4 US Dollars. For foreigners, the price was $15 US Dollars. That is a 375% price increase for foreigners. Because the book didn't sell well (I wonder why), Premanand increased the price to 400 rupees (approximately $9 US dollar). For foreigners, the price was increased to $40 US Dollars (including the shipping cost of $6). $40 - $6 = $34. This means that Premanand was trying to make a 378% profit off of foreigners. *tsk* *tsk*
When it comes to why Premanand is charging so much money to foreigners, he makes all kinds of excuses to justify his profiteering. However, Premanand sees no problem pointing out the profiteering of SSB, without even taking into consideration other relevant expenses. This proves that Premanand is a profiteer, or tried to be one. I am sure he didn't make a profit from his book. However his price gauging is evident. Why doesn't Premanand tell us how many copies he sold to his book? Why doesn't he provide the general public with copies to his expenditures? After all, what does Premanand have to hide?

Reply : I have already mentioned some of my expenses and any one can check up whether these expenses are necessary from the shops who do the printing work in India. It is certainly true that GM has made more than one mistake (omission) in his calculations! GM admits I made no profit from my book, but he wants to insinuate that I am a profiteer. I can set the price as I see fit, and the public can buy it or not, as they wish. I also happen to be engaged in much charitable (unpaid) work, but GM has not researched that. Another major problem about SSB's finances is that he collects massive sums through deceit and extracts donations from people on on false premises, pretending to 'materialise' valuable objects which are shop bought (watches, jewellry etc. etc.) and by lying that every single 'naia paise' goes to the poor, when millions go to finance education for sons of rich families, erecting buildings for himself (which to Indians are palaces) or white elephant museums etc. only to glorify his own name.

If any one wants any copies of my expenditure, if GM can provide me with the latest income and expenditure a/c and balance sheet of the SSB Trusts, I can provide mine, though I am not legally bound to give it to GM. The SSB trusts are legally bound to give it to anyone who asks and supplies the copying charges paid. Will they supply it for GM? If so, will GM supply it for the "Public" he keeps on referring to as being so deserving of the truth?

Who finances Gerald Moreno's expensive web pages? Who finances his exhaustingly long days and nights at the computer trying to spread perverse disinformation and slander in the public sphere? What profits is he making and from whom? Why does GM have to attack me with a false charge of profiteering? Is it not simply because he wants by any conceivable false means to defame me so as also to imply - most illogically - that this also affects my judgements on the murders issue?

GM's reference No. 13 : It is my opinion that Premanand's views, regarding the 1993 police shootings, is a conspiracy theory. I will give valid reasons why I believe this, as this article progresses. Since Premanand's book, Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom, is now out of print (according to Robert Priddy), it would very difficult for anyone to obtain a copy. Now why would I pay $40 US Dollars for a paperback book (whose cost is comparable to purchasing a hardback, unabridged, Collegiate Dictionary with a compact disk included) when much of what is written in Premanand's book (regarding the 1993 police shootings) has already been published on the internet?

Reply : My book is not out of print, as GM well knows already and copies are readily available from me, so why the deceit? Why does GM hide behind Priddy's out-dated statement (after the first edition was sold out) which he made before he knew it was reprinted? Since GM pontificates on my views in this book without even having read it, this is a most excellent reason for him to buy it. He can't find my facts in the Collegiate Dictionary, however cheap or discounted it may be on offer! Incidentally, Mr. Priddy also now positively accepts that most of my views as to many details of the murders incident are better-informed than his were, for he states that he naturally recognises that I was much more closely involved at the time than he was and have filled in many gaps in his knowledge of the issue. (Just ask him!).
As SSB is the person dealt with in my book, GM should try to get a letter from him to prove factually that my book contains a conspiracy theory! Good luck! If GM wants to prove that my book is a conspiracy theory he will first have to read it in full, which he refuses to do! The full book comes to 872 pages. His shabby intellectual probity is exposed for all to see! The references on the internet given by GM do not come to much compared to the book. I have not asked him to spare 40 US $ to purchase my book. It is easy to understand that GM has no employment because of his constant, daily web activity - yet his slick, costly website must be funded somehow, and he is not short of funds for series of international phone calls (which he denies making, despite the evidence). If he is researching on the book to try to refute it, he should pay up for it, or perhaps get backers to fund it. There must be someone among the alleged '20 million followers' GM claims to know about who would contribute?

GM also wrote : At photographs are provided of the four assailants, after they were shot by police, and other miscellaneous photographs are shown. On this page, one can see that Premanand cited no forensic experts or sources. Premanand, himself, speculated (and formed conclusions) based on what he thought happened. Unlike Premanand, I cannot (and will not) draw conclusions about these pictures because I am not (and do not pretend to be) a forensic expert.
One can read Premanand's assumptions about these photographs, even though he was never personally present. I could comment about many of Premanand's errors regarding the pictures in question, but I simply do not have the time to post many pages about his numerous speculations. The fact remains that Premanand never cited any forensic experts and drew conclusions based on conjecture and inexperienced and untrained observations.
To give several examples, if one goes to the link just provided and scroll down to "Pic. 1", one will read the following, "is the massive building where the 3 domes are covered with gold - the residence of Satya Sai Baba with a plinth area of 35' x 90' with a first floor of the same dimension:". The picture provided is an old picture of the mandir. The three domes on top are not (and never were) "covered with gold". Premanand is wrong.
On "Pic. 2", Premanand said, "is the photograph of the Baba distributing letters to his devotees, after a sumptuous lunch to the devotees and the residents of Puttaparthi" The "sumptuous lunch" was fried rice with a laddu as a sweet, served on flaky, dried leaf plates (whose leafs were held together with tiny sticks). Oh, that sounds "sumptuous" to me.
On "Pic. 4", one will read the following, "is the interview room where the four Sai Baba aides are alleged to have been stabbed by the four alleged assailants out of which two died. The blue door leads to the stair case leading to the first floor. Strangely the wooden throne used by Sai Baba while giving interviews is missing in the room. There is a pool of blood in the center of the room on the left side which is alleged to have gushed out of the stab injuries of the four aides. There is a stick in the middle of the blood pool and a metal rod at the end of the blood pool facing the blue door. How these happened to be in the room is not investigated." Of course, what Premanand failed to mention is that (in the picture provided) only the left-hand side of the room was photographed. Anyone who has ever had an interview, knows that SSB's chair is located on the far right-hand side of the interview room. That is why the chair was not visible in the photograph. Only the left hand side of the interview room was shown! Furthermore, there is no way to determine that the small, brown, stick-like object in the picture was a "metal rod". That is Premanand's speculation. The picture shows the place where SSB's four aides were stabbed (2 were murdered and 2 others were seriously wounded, but survived). Since the doors were broken open, it is entirely possible that the "metal rod" is actually a piece of splintered wood. Once again, no one knows for certain.
On "Pic. 7", one will read the following, "is the interview room of Sai Baba next to his bedroom where Sai Baba meets the members of his trust and other functionaries. There are two wooden poles, one stained with blood, a pillow with blood stain, a wall clock, a table lamp and other articles on the sofa. But no blood on the sofa. The very fact that these materials are on the sofa set proves someone had placed them on the sofa. This proves that there were others in Sai Baba residence". If anyone views the picture in question, one will not see any blood on the poles or on the pillow. An important fact, that Premanand overlooks, is that he has no idea when these pictures were taken (how long after the events transpired). He is, once again, speculating. I have found similar problems in every single one of Premanand's descriptions. Anyone with any sort of reasoning faculty will see how Premanand is pretending to be a forensic expert and jumping to conclusions without knowing other relevant information that could alter his perceptions considerably.
Premanand also said, on the link provided earlier, "The police failed in their duty to verify the finger prints on the alarm switch, the knives, the bottle containing potassium cyanide, ether, the bombs, the poles etc., which if they had verified would have been enough proof to arrest the real murderers.".
However, Premanand said, at whomurdered.html, "The fact that the 4 alleged assailants did not have any weapons like knives and daggers is proved by the fact that their finger prints were not found on them and to make people believe that they had worn gloves, they had strewn the gloves around the dead bodies of the 4 alleged assailants which did not even have a speck of blood on the gloves." Now which is it? Were the knives inspected for fingerprints or not? Premanand cannot make up his mind. This proves my point that Premanand is not only making blind assumptions (and doing so poorly, I might add), but he is shamelessly spreading them as the truth. The previous two links show that Premanand is essentially making guesses based on his own perceptions and ideas. That is why I said that Premanand's viewpoints are a "conspiracy theory". They are not based on what actually happened (no one knows for certain), but what he thinks "might" have happened.

Reply : There is no need to cite any forensic experts when the post mortem reports itself are published in the book 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' on pages 347 to 357 of Vol I. When GM arrogantly asserts: "Anyone with any sort of reasoning faculty will see how Premanand is pretending to be a forensic expert and jumping to conclusions without knowing other relevant information that could alter his perceptions considerably." By the maxim 'by oneself one knows other', this seems to be a telling description of GM's mentality and behaviour, but let anyone be the judge who cares to study his inconsistencies, baseless assumptions and guesses with undocumented allegations.

Whether I speculated or GM is speculating can be known from my replies. GM's statement that, unlike Premanand, he cannot (and will not ) draw conclusions about these pictures because he is not (and does not pretend to be) a forensic expert is misplaced when he is publishing his responses drawing all kinds of conclusions around the pictures etc. …He also stated: "but I simply do not have the time to post many pages about his numerous speculations." I have never asked GM for his opinions and if he is going to research my book, he will have to find the time required. He has wasted 90% of his time in irrelevant sentences, and the rest 10% in twisting facts. Does this not amount to "shamelessly spreading untruth"?

Readers will know whether or not I drew my conclusions based on conjecture and inexperienced and untrained observations. Even Sai Baba and the legal luminaries behind him have never come forward to claim that or anything like it. I have posted copies of the books to the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court and the Parliament library and none of them have come with the accusations GM has made when he states that he has not even read the book. The courts would have taken contempt action against me if I were wrong.

Photograph 1: Page 375 : if GM is assuming that the photograph of SSB's residence is not the same as it was on 6.6.1993 I request him to see the photographs published in the newspapers since 6.6.1993 as the place of murders.
1. page 57, published by 'Indian Express' on 9.6.193, where Janakiram, brother of SSB pointing at the door through which the assailants entered the Prasanthi Nilayam, where Baba was resting.
2. Page 106, 'Deccan Herald' 11.6.1993. A police man stands guard at one of the gates of Prasanthi Nilayam at Puttaparthi, where an attempt was allegedly made on the life of Sri Sathya Sai Baba on Sunday night. Most of the action reportedly took place on the left side of the first place in the section of the building seen in the photograph
3. Page 145 'The Times of India' daily 13.6.1993. Sri Sathya Sai Baba Sanctum Sanctorum at Prasanthi Nilayam at Puttaparthi, which witnessed the alleged assassination bid on the godman on Sunday last.
4. Page 214 'The Week' June 20, 1993.
5. Page 255 'Front Line' July 2, 1993
GM virtually is claiming that SSB fakes his domes as golden with mere paint! But the domes of the Prashanthi mandir are decked in gold leaf, hence metal. This is why they do not get a new coat when the mandir is re-painted at intervals. This has been the case since before 1980. It is GM who is wrong, again.

Photograph 2: Page 375:
I never said what GM alleges about 'the photograph of the Baba distributing letters'. GM jumps to conclusions about them because he has not got or read my book. Read properly the caption Vol II, page 374 Picture 2. Moreover GM has nothing to say about the rest of the caption Vol.II, page 374 Picture 2. Probably he has not had food in small restaurants in Andhra Pradesh. Moreover he does not know the poor in Andhra Pradesh on whom he has cut the joke "oh, that sounds "sumptuous" to me," "To me" are the keywords here: such food would be sumptuous for many millions in India, if not for well-off, international-jetting Americans.

Photograph 4 page 376:
When GM states any one can see that only the left hand side of the room was photographed, he has to produce a photograph of the full room to prove this is so. The inquest report states that the place of crime was photographed at different angles by Mr. Padmanabhan of Puttaparthi, Sai Towers. GM has not stated anything about the photograph 3, which is the entrance to the interview room. Both the sides of this room have appeared in full in this photograph. The width of the interview room cannot be more than the width of the entrance side, since the side wall of the three sides are complete. Looking to the far side of the interview room it can be known that the balance space left outside from the photograph is not enough for the chair on the 6th night or the 7th morning of the murder. The dispute is not whether anyone who had ever had an interview, knows that SSB's chair is located on the far right hand side. (Actually it is fairly central, somewhat to the right of centre! Another 'convenient inaccuracy' by GM!) But why is it not there on the photograph? GM claims to know so much of the residence but he has not mentioned what photograph 3 shows or whether photograph 4 is the private interview room where individuals are invited.

Who says that there is no way to determine that the small, brown, stick like object in the picture was a metal rod? It should be in the inquest report. As it is not there in the inquest report or in the police verification report of the crime site because this was arranged after the filing of the inquest reports. No one had broken open the door here as it was the door to the bed room of SSB that was alleged to have been broken open by the police in the F.I.R. Splintered wood cannot look like a metal rod. GM's assumptions "once again, no one knows for certain" is another assertion to confuse people. As he is apparently claiming to be very familiar with the rooms, he had not said anything about the door in photograph 4 at the far end as to where it leads. Whether to the stair case or the private interview room where individuals are invited for private personal hearing. In fact, it leads to the private interview room.

Why GM has omitted any mention of photographs 5 and 6, he has not explained. Is it not because the comments are true?

Photograph 7: Why did GM delete the last sentence in my comments on the photograph? Which was: "On the left side of the sofa near the teapoy there is rope and stick. In front of the sofa on the left side is a hose and a T-shaped metal instrument." He has surely left this out because he had no comments to make as to how these were found in the room.

It is just GM's way of faking the proof for his alleged 20 million SSB devotees. Interesting, too, that dozens of other devotee commentators on SSB claim for him 50 million and sometimes also 60 million. GM is also guessing wildly as to numbers, for where is a single fragment of properly documented numerical proof, let alone independent estimates? None whatever from SSB or his organisations, as usual! Any one can see the blood on the pole, a pillow with blood stains and other materials. GM has mentioned in his comments that an important fact Premanand overlooks is that he has no idea when these pictures were taken how long after the events transpired.

It was not before it was stage-managed with the help of the legal luminaries and the law enforcement. With GM's assumptions that I am once again speculating - and GM has pretended to find similar problems in every single one of Premanand's descriptions. Yet unless GM can prove that my comments are false, his comments are invalid and fall dead to the ground. The very fact that he has left many of my comments unremarked proves that his main purpose is overwhelmingly to confuse the issue and mislead people as much as he can. His meaningless assumptions without dealing wholly with my comments are sufficient witness to this.

Instead of producing of other knowing relevant information that could alter my perceptions, GM is simply imagining things which have no relevance to my comments. It is true that the police failed to verify the finger prints and if they had done it, it would have proved who handled the daggers. It also would have proved the 4 alleged assailants had not handled them.

The very fact that GM has not gone beyond the photograph 7 proves that, if the people who have not read the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room", they would realise the truth as explained by me. This is also proved true that - instead of touching the photographs, GM jumped to the web site mentioned by him, which is however the conclusion of other chapters, including the chapter on photographs. When he questions: "which is it?" the answer is in the inquest report. His saying that Premanand cannot make up his mind is solely in his imagination. If he were to read the book, he would find he is wrong. His use of words like "blind assumptions, poorly, shamelessly, guesses and conspiracy theory" very seriously questions his moral respectability.

GM Response No. 14 : At:, is the reference for my following comments. Premanand just 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 SSB and the followers who were present at the time of the murders." On the link provided, Premanand cited newspapers for quite a different reason (admittedly):
The Time of the Assault. 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. 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.
Did the police arrive at Prasanthinilayam before Commencement of the crime? If the police had come after 10:30 the statement of Gangadhara Reddy to a question by Times of India, dated 9-6-1993 (Vol. 2, Page 74) and Deccan Chronicle, dated 10-6-1993 (Vol. 2, Page 81) that "when we saw the stabbed bodies of the Baba's personal aides lying in a pool of blood, two of them writhing in agony with blood gushing out, and upon realising that the attackers had gained access to the first floor; what else we could have done?" should be false."
At:, when Premanand's writ petition was dismissed, he submitted 186 pages of Newspaper clippings as an annexure. Why would he submit 186 pages as an annexure if Premanand didn't think it was "proof" (my word)? Consequently, it is clear that Premanand relied on newspaper clippings to make his case against SSB and did not supply them, "just to show how agitated the people were because of the destruction of the evidence by the police and the silence by SSB".
Funny that Premanand would ask me to contact former Justice Bhagwati and Justice Ranganath Mishra. Barry Pittard had the following to say about them, " I may mention in passing that P.N. Bhagawati, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, a key figure on the Sathya Sai Central Trust (India) is also on the Board of Directors of The Times of India. In a joint public letter, it is he along with the Prime Minister of India, A.B. Vajpayee, and another former Chief Justice of India, Ranganath Mishra, who has said that our contentions represent 'wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba.'" Since Premanand feels that these two justices are "civil" , then I think Premanand is attributing civility to their comments regarding Anti-Sai Activists! Putting this amusing fact aside, I am not aware of the case that Premanand cited. Consequently, I cannot comment on it. I am not aware of any court that has accepted a newspaper clipping (in and of itself) as proof. There has to be evidence that supports the claims made in the newspaper clipping. That is the point I made.

Reply : Submitting newspapers in a writ petition and evaluating them is different. For GM it may be blind assumptions, but when the FIR stated that the four assailants stabbed them indiscriminately the police ought to have taken the finger prints on the knives, gloves etc. to prove that these four assailants attacked the four aides. They did not do it because the truth was different.

If GM thinks his suppositions are true, then he must produce documentation. My arguments mentioned above are based on the F.I.R and other records which are published in the book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room ". Every one has the right to have their own ideas but I cannot accept them without proof.

As I have mentioned, in GM's response, the judgement is what I wanted while filing the case. The then Prime Minister of India and the two former Chief Justices of the Supreme Court came forward with a statement about "wild, reckless and concocted allegations made by certain vested interests and people against Bhagavan Sai Sathya Sai Baba". This statement was given without meeting even one of the sexually abused students. That is why GM should contact them, as he is posing as a researcher, but does no research. But then why would sexually abused individuals or their families trust him when he is tries to undermine their accounts, slandering them viciously as liars (without any evidence) and is so uncritical of SSB and all his works? Why would they trust him when - instead of being compassionate, sensitive, respectful of confidentiality and of the necessarily gradual processes of painful victim revelation, and self-disciplined enough not to race into Internet posting - his overwhelming purpose is to repudiate, denigrate, harass, and defame?
The dishonesty of the former Prime Minister and the Retired Chief Justices of India and the falsity of their statement is exposed by 'The Secret Swami' documentary from the interview with Murali Manohar Joshi, Dr.Goldstein and Isaac Tigrett. Just because GM does not like this fact does not make it false. Doubtless, even if he reads 'Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room' he would come with more of his silly, faked arguments to confuse the issues. Refer 1993 (4) scale, Supreme Court of India Records of proceedings. The two former Chief Justices of India would surely help him to trace them.

GM's Response No. 15 : "The press reporters are not responsible to give out their information or evidence to anyone." According to Premanand, Indian newspapers are not accountable and take no responsiblity for the articles they publish. What an amazing confession! Despite this confession, Premanand uses these same unaccountable and irresponsible newspaper articles as proof and evidence against Sathya Sai Baba!If these newspaper reporters had proof that was overlooked or ignored by the police, why didn't Premanand ask the court to get the evidence from them? Instead, Premanand supplied the court with irrelevant statements, from Tal Brooke's book Lord of the Air (whose alleged witnesses have never come forward, in over 30 years, to corroborate Tal Brooke's stories), that were not applicable to the 1993 police shootings.
It is amusing that Premanand points his finger at me, accusing me of not knowing Indian Law. Considering Premanand's failures in Indian Courts of Law (against SSB), it is exceedingly clear whom does not know Indian law!

Reply : No newspapers are responsible to give their information to any one and one has to approach the court and get information if their plea is genuine. I have not stated that newspapers are unaccountable and irresponsible. I have myself gone to Press Council of India when the pro Sai Baba group got published their statements and as they did not publish my reply the Council ordered the newspaper to publish confessing the falsehood. When SSB has not approached the Press Council of India nor the courts with many Justices on his side it proves the truthfulness of the articles. The question why SSB did not choose to approach them.

Many times SSB has approached the Press Council of India through his members and their complaints were dismissed. Why should I approach the court, when I have documented the newspaper clippings and the High Court or the Supreme Court did not comment on the truthfulness? Though SSB and the Trust members poured hatred on the press they did not approach the Council nor the courts. This would lead to the question whether the newspapers were lying or SSB and his officials.

GM may imagine himself a master of Indian Law, but it does not mean that others have to accept his claims. He has shown himself abysmally ignorant of many aspects of it already! He can ask the same question to SSB and the Justices behind him and find out why they did not approach the two forums available, and find out whether they were afraid that their petitions would be dismissed. When they were former Supreme Court Justices, no one can say that they did not know any law.

I have given enough opportunity to Gerald Moreno to prove that my contentions and summing up on the 6 murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room are false. But he has failed terribly in his attempt, not least by adding external and irrelevant subjects, decoys, and vilifying me.

The preceding articles on the murders issue:
FIRST ARTICLE: On the murders in Sai Baba's bedroom issue - a defamatory critic rebutted
SECOND ARTICLE:  Further rebuttals about the murders 

(I want to thank my skeptic colleagues for relieving work pressures on me by key board work and editing of my answers)  

NOTE! Unless otherwise stated, every article on these pages is the registered copyright of the author and/or website owner and unauthorised copying will be pursued legally.
Permission to be sought in writing via the owner of this website