Abaya Case:Not only CDs but also the analysts are fake

Abaya Case:Not only CDs but also the analysts are fake
Prof Dr P Chandra Sekharan

The CBI informed the Kerala High Court that in Abaya Case the CDs on which Narco Analysis Test was copied are fake. According to them the tampering was done in the Forensic Lab in Bangalore itself. CBI asked the court to take action against Dr.S.Malini, assistant director of the FSL who misguided the court in the matter of CD. But, the CBI must know now the most respected and upright police officer Mr.S.T.Ramesh IPS from Karnataka had found out that Malini herself is a fake and that she had been misguiding the Indian police, judiciary, media and the nation for quite some time.
Mr. Ramesh brought to light that Malini joined service with a forged certificate of Age proof and fabricated certificates of non-existing qualification and experience.
A. Forgery of Age Certificate
The year of her birth according to KSEE Board is 1960. She fabricated a certificate to claim it as 1964. From her sworn affidavit in Sessions Court in Criminal Case No 694/05, she was 38years in June 2006. The year has to be inferred as 1968.
B. Claim of Nonexistent Qualification and Experience
I). False declaration in Court
Malini deposed on oath in the Sessions Court in Criminal Case No 694/05 that she had specialised training from W.H.O. and Calgary University, Canada regarding narcoanalysis and brain mapping.
Even during the cross examination on 07.08.2006, she was adamant like a seasoned liar and confirmed that she had a specialised training in Narcoanalysis and Brain mapping from W.H.O at Calgary University, Canada under one Prof Sherrowss during 1993 and that she does have the certificates for the same. Malini knew that she is bluffing but could have least realised that her bluff would turn out to be anachronistic blunder.
Brain mapping technique for crime investigation was developed by Farwell only after 1995. The Canada training is said to have been during 1992. Unfortunately, Lawrence Farwell’s brain fingerprinting technique came to be known only after 1995!
II) Malini’s Application
Malini’s application dated 01.06.2007 submitted to the Member-Secretary, Special Recruitment committee contained entries in her own handwriting. The two entries in respect of Calgary University are reproduced here verbatim in four columns
1)Year/2)Examination/3)University/4) Class & aggregate
1992/ BASIC&ADVHYPNOTHERAPY/ CALAGARYCANADA/ ENCL-6
1992/HYPNOSIS/CALAGARY&INT.PSY.RESARCH/ENCL-9
A cursory reading of the entry indicates her claim that she has done the examinations in the subject ‘Basic and adv Hypnotherapy’ and ‘Hypnosis’ in University of Calgary. But the way she wrote on both occasions the word Calgary as CALAGARY , miserably exposes the fact that she had only heard orally about the University from somebody and had no direct access whatsoever to Calgary University. This is confirmed again from the fact that Malini had corrected in her own hand the word Calgary this time as “CALAGORY” and signed in the typed copy of her deposition of 07.08.2006 (court record). Now let us examine the certificates she had submitted along with her application.
I). The first certificate
i) The certificate was issued by one Dr M.C. Boyes and not by Prof. Sherrowss as she deposed on oath. A surfing on the Internet to find details of faculty in psychology in Calgary reveals that there is no one with the name M.C.Boyes but comes across with the names of ‘Mike Boyes’ and ‘Schwartz’. Perhaps it was the name of Prof Schwartz, she was trying to recollect and cite in her deposition but fumbled upon the spelling.
ii) The word ‘Canada’ in the certificate was typed as ‘CANNADA’
iii) There is no mention of narcoanalysis or brain mapping in the certificate.
iv) The photocopy of the certificate was attested by Malini’s husband Dr. B.K. Muralidhara, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UVCE, Bangalore University.
II). The second certificate
This certificate refers only about her participation in a workshop on Hypnosis conducted by “INTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESERCH BANGALORE in association with DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore during May 2-11, 1992.
i) The words “institute” and “Research” are misspelt as “INTITUTE” and “RESERCH”.
ii) There is no mention of narcoanalysis or brain mapping in the certificate.
iii) The photocopy of the certificate was attested by Malini’s husband Dr. B.K. Muralidhara, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, UVCE, Bangalore University.
It is indeed a surprise that her husband, said to be a University professor, who conspired with his wife to produce fabricated certificates did not notice such patent blunders. All the more it is really astonishing how the learned members of the Special recruitment Committee (SRC), who scrutinized Malini’s application and certificates, have passed on the blunders quietly. It is known from the proceedings of the SRC that the members have indeed scrutinized the two applications received by them and rejected one and selected Malini’s application for interview.
III) Employment in NIMHANS
Malini claimed as if she is an employee of NIMHANS while she was actually employed by one Dr. Mukundan of NIMHANS in his project work. Untruth comes so freely from the mouth of truth finder.
IV) PhD in Narcoanalysis
As per entry in application, she has done her Ph.D in Mysore University in the field of ‘Clinical mental health of wives of alcoholics cognitive impairment in alcoholism’. But in her interview with “India Today” dated March 26, 2007, she claims to be a PhD in narcoanalysis from the University of Calgary, Canada.
V) M.A. or M.Sc. in psychology
She mentions in the application form her qualification as ‘M.A’ and no subjects are mentioned. But she claims to be an M.Sc. in ‘Industrial and Clinical Psychology’ in her interview with Deccan Herald dated April 13, 2007.
VI) Bluff as a medical doctor
In her interview to Deccan Herald dated April 13, 2007 she claims she “did her 'residency' in Canada in the department of experimental hypnosis and learnt to conduct 'hypnosis' for both clinically analytical purposes and to study the psyche of criminals”. Residency is meant for medicos and she is not a medico
VII) Permission to use Narco tests
In her interview to Midday dated 8.3.2008, Malini says “I presented a project on narco analysis to the ministry of information technology. I got the green signal to use narco analysis tests in 2000, At that time narco analysis tests were not being conducted and I thought the introduction of this test would help the investigation process. I then prepared a paper relating to narco-analysis and presented it to the Ministry of Information Technology, following which the use of this technique was approved in 2000”. This is one of the biggest bluffs. The said ministry is not the authority to permit the use of Narco tests.
Actually Malini submitted a project titled “Neurophysiological Methods of Interrogation of Suspects with Mohan as Principal Investigator and herself as co-investigator and applied for a grant-in-aid of Rs 77.19 lakhs without the approval of the Government of Karnataka. The Karnataka government refused to approve the project till date. Hence second instalment was not released by DIT. No audit done. No results were submitted to DIT. Not a single research paper published (she admitted this in the Sessions Case quoted supra) and the forty lakhs received already were conveniently looted.
The above revelations thus far brought out in the police enquiry indicate that Malini is indeed a crook but not a clever crook. One should be intelligent enough even to be a crook. Her forgeries and bluffs are so crude and disjointed resembling the work of a simpleton and exposing lack of concentration and coordination even in her own affairs. She is not able to keep track of past events and speaks of what comes to her mind at that moment. Her ‘thought form’ is disorganised and her thought contents are incoherent. There seems to be not much of an imagination in terminologies, accuracy in spellings etc which portrays limited creativity in forgery! Concrete, simple, childish ways cannot lead to success in fabrication.
How such a person can be entrusted with the duty of subjecting the accused and suspects in criminal cases and that too by using primitive and pseudoscientific techniques? All her opinions could have certainly been framed according to her own vacillating whims and fancies. She may report what flashes in her mind at that moment. It is pity that the media and judiciary have been eulogising the fake all these years.
I am informed that Malini (with her poor performance in SSLC examination) is incapable of drafting her reports but somebodyelse drafts all the reports issued by Malini. The judiciary can decide about the veracity of the reports.
The expert opinion of psychologists using hypnosis, theories of repression, recovered memories, deviant behaviour, dissociation and multiple personality disorder, as well as others is no longer acceptable on the grounds of lack of reliability and testability.
But one thing is very clear. All along she has been practising more of hypnotism than narcoanalysis. It is well known that even near illiterates can practise hypnotism successfully and Malini has been doing the same.
I am of a very strong opinion that all cases in which the court decisions are based only on Malini’s findings have certainly to be reopened again.