Better track - Page 6

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Awfulggt

@Awfulggt

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#51

Originally posted by: aparnauma

The questions I asked are not meant to divert the topic.
My question was to the people who are objecting to Anandi doing her own investigation
Well when the show is about Anandi's life and how she reacts in various situations why would i want to see what the police do and what the lawyers do etc?
If I want to see what the police detective and lawyers do to solve the crime cases I would rather switch on to watch one of those shows like CID etc

Since this is a social drama with a story revolving around certain characters it is only logical that one would be more interested in seeing how the characters of the show solve their problems.Not sit through extensive detailing about the case the investigation etc.

Questioning Anandi's methods is one thing and saying why Anandi should do investigation is another thing.

You said that Anandi harrassing that Brijesh man is not done and I just said that I didn't find it wrong if she goes to check him out. You look at it differently I look at it differently on that.

If she doesn't do anything and sits and wait for the esteemed govt and govt systems to d their job she will be called passive and taking nonsense from govt

If she is aggressive in trying to get justice that's also a problem???

@bold - From what i see, there are only two members (Myself and puja), in this thread. who are not happy with the way things are going. And we have been stressing only "on the way Anandi is dealing with this" and never said anything about why Anandi is investigating this case in the first place. So your questions , the parts in bold which are being focussed on why anandi shouldn't help her husband seem totally unrelated.

I repeat: I do not expect Anandi to sit and home and see how things go. I want her to be active in this. But I don't want her to be stupid. I want CV's to solve this case from better angles through Anandi. She could for instance raise questions about the PM report and the kerosene thing. And then ask the hundred and odd questions some of our honourable members themselves raised and could hire a proper detective that would investigate peoples lives at personal levels without them being aware of it.

Edited by The_Alchemist. - 11 years ago

Quote

731627

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#52

ya police should not get away so easily .yesteday police was sweating when vivek ask for footage and people get angry also when they think their truth is can be expose like police and brijesh get angry

Edited by surabhi01 - 11 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

rohini55

@rohini55

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#53

Witness intimidation is a serious problem in our country. The Supreme Court in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases instituted a witness protection programme to shield witnesses from being intimidated/influenced by the accused. Thanks to this witnesses came forward to testify in many of the cases resulting in the court being able to secure conviction of the accused.

Witnesses can be intimidated by the lawyers of the accused or anyone else connected to the accused. In either case, the courts will not take kindly to the act. Anandi may not have gone to meet Brajesh (who was summoned as a witness) in order to intimidate him but he can always complain that she tried to force/bribe him to testify in Shiv's favour.

In 2007, NDTV ran a sting operation on the famous BMW hit and run case which showed prominent criminal lawyer R.K Anand trying to influence a key wtiness in favour of the accused.

Here is an extract from the report

" On May 30, 2007 NDTV exposed the nexus between the two well-known lawyers, who tried to influence a key witness in the BMW hit-and-run case.

Defence lawyer R K Anand and public prosecutor I U Khan were caught on hidden camera trying to win over Sunil Kulkarni who on the night of 10th January 1999 saw Sanjeev Nanda drive his black BMW on Delhi's Lodhi Road.

Khan was immediately removed from the case and the Delhi Bar Council asked both lawyers for an explanation and started an inquiry against them.

The Delhi high court took suo motu cognizance of the expose.

NDTV was asked to submit original tapes of the recordings, but the lawyers protested that the tapes were tampered with.

The case was heard for over a year.

Eventually in August 2008, the High Court found both of the lawyers guilty.

They were barred them from Delhi courts for four months and stripped off their seniority.

Anand and Khan appealed against the High Court order in the Supreme Court.

The verdict was pronounced on Wednesday"

Edited by rohini55 - 11 years ago

Quote

rohini55

@rohini55

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#54

When and how does the relationship between Raskia and Brajesh become relevant in the case?

It can become relevant if the following is established. Phone call records will show that Brajesh called Raskia before Narendra's murder.

It is now possible to establish precise locations of a cell phone. If Brajehs's phone shows that he was in the vicinity of Raskaa's house at the time Narendra set off from home to allegedly kill himself, then questions arise as to what he was doing there.

Of course this cannot be a standalone evidence. Because Brajesh can always say he was somewhere in the area or that his phone was used by someone else.

But it can become corroborative evidence, especially since it can be shown that the two were constantly in touch after the immolation.

Investigators do use phone locations in combination with conversations between suspects before and after a crime as evidence.

But I can't see BV going this far, when the defence lawyer does not even ask for the PM report.

Quote

731627

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#55

well vivek already advice anandi in yesteday episode that is not to do such thing which can lead u toward problem .i think anandi will not ignore vivek advice and creat problem of herself and moreover best part anandi is not doing investigation alone best part is that anandi is doing investiagation underguidance of lawyer best thing is that anandi took lawyer with her while going brijesh house and another best thing lawyer also know that anandi went to brijesh house for investigation .

Quote

aparnauma

@GoodDoc_2105

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 11 years ago

#56

Originally posted by: rohini55
Witness intimidation is a serious problem in our country. The Supreme Court in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases instituted a witness protection programme to shield witnesses from being intimidated/influenced by the accused. Thanks to this witnesses came forward to testify in many of the cases resulting in the court being able to secure conviction of the accused.

Witnesses can be intimidated by the lawyers of the accused or anyone else connected to the accused. In either case, the courts will not take kindly to the act. Anandi may not have gone to meet Brajesh (who was summoned as a witness) in order to intimidate him but he can always complain that she tried to force/bribe him to testify in Shiv's favour.

In 2007, NDTV ran a sting operation on the famous BMW hit and run case which showed prominent criminal lawyer R.K Anand trying to influence in favour of the accused.

Here is an extract from the report

" On May 30, 2007 NDTV exposed the nexus between the two well-known lawyers, who tried to influence a key witness in the BMW hit-and-run case.

Defence lawyer R K Anand and public prosecutor I U Khan were caught on hidden camera trying to win over Sunil Kulkarni who on the night of 10th January 1999 saw Sanjeev Nanda drive his black BMW on Delhi's Lodhi Road.

Khan was immediately removed from the case and the Delhi Bar Council asked both lawyers for an explanation and started an inquiry against them.

The Delhi high court took suo motu cognizance of the expose.

NDTV was asked to submit original tapes of the recordings, but the lawyers protested that the tapes were tampered with.

The case was heard for over a year.

Eventually in August 2008, the High Court found both of the lawyers guilty.

They were barred them from Delhi courts for four months and stripped off their seniority.

Anand and Khan appealed against the High Court order in the Supreme Court.

The verdict was pronounced on Wednesday"

Witness intimidation - Even if he says that Anandi tried to bribe him or forced him shouldn't he produce evidence to substantiate his claims?

It is only his word against Anandi's word.

Anandi will say that she left her phone in his office and just went to make a request to make arrangements to give her phone back.She will even go to the extent of saying that she wanted to know why he is getting divorced that's why she went over to his place.

Who will the court believe in this circumstances?

When she met him in his office she did not know about his involvement.

She did go to Rasika's place even there it is her word against Anandi's word.

Where is the evidence to suggest that she intimidated Rasika?

Quote

rohini55

@rohini55

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#57

Aparna,

If Anandi goes to all of Raskia's bosses and together they complain ( because they have an interest in not being implicated in the case), she could be in trouble.

Remember, Brajesh told Anandi she could visit all of Rasika's bosses, and they'd all tell her the same thing: For the simple reason that if they have been in a relationship with her, they would have a vested interest in protecting her. ( of course, there must be odd one out whom Ram Singh will dig out)

It is not about Anandi not wanting to intimidate Brajesh or whether she has a valid reason to visit Brajesh.

The particulars of this case are irrelevant to the general principle that witness intimidation/influence is wrong. And if the court is convinced of it, it can take a serious view.

In India there has been a long-standing demand for witness protection laws. In many countries in the west these laws are already in place.

Quote

rohini55

@rohini55

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#58

Aparna,

I agree with Alchemist hat Anandi need not sit around moping helplessly.

She can sit with Shiv and Vivek and make a check list of what all the police should have done in the case but did not do.

Among other things:

Establish the time of immolation

Establish the time of Raskia's arrival

Check with Ram Lal: He told the enquiry committee N was already on fire when he entered Shiv's office. This casts doubts on Rasika's version that she saw the immolation

Post mortem report

Trace the kerosene trail; locate the kerosene can.

Look for tyre marks

Get the tea boy to testify

Many others have added several other points.

Having done this, they should frame the questions that Vivek should ask in court: He should demand and get the PM report. he should seek permission to examine the SP and the inspector.

What she has undertaken to do is very risky though I agree that it makes good drama.

AND She could tell Shiv not to look like an imbecile (which he did most of yesterday) but put his thinking cap on..

Quote

Missesha

@Missesha

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#59

For me, this case is not just about the lead and her pati and their ability to go through this tough times. For me it is lot more than that. It is about how a man, a DC has been falsely alleged of Molestation charges, and how all the related parties i.e. police, lawyer, witnesses, the accused and his family members together solve this case.

The lead is just one among them and not the only one.

I do not want to see the lead making stupid moves. I surely want to see her investigating, but she should have the basis for it. She can't just show up at the accuser's house just like that at an odd hour and expect to get the clues in a tray presented to her.

She needs to have a plan and a strategy. Otherwise it's foolishness. She was only successful in alerting the criminal.

Even if she finds out that Rasika was at Brijesh's place on that day, what's the big deal. Rasika - Brijesh can come up with any convincing excuse to justify their meeting.

If Anandi really wants to gather evidences, Post mortem report should be her first point. Reference Check on Rasika with her other previous bosses should be second. Try and put, 2 plus 2 together to come to a conclusion. And the lawyer's job should be to do smart cross-questioning. He seems to be dropping obvious clues.

There are too many lapses in this case.

Edited by Missesha - 11 years ago

Quote

SPuja

@SPuja

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

#60

@rohini,

The problem is - we cannot expect creatives to show such things. They will show Anandi going to question Rasika and Brijesh, making excuse of water to enter the house, accidentally finding some clues, may catch Rasika and Brijesh bragging how they fooled everybody and record it or other similar illogical ways - that is how all court cases have been - just when the judgement is to be pronounced, Anandi/Lawyer will come with proof and judge will base his judgement on that only. And pointing out the mistakes of creatives means we are nitpicking. That means viewers actually want to see what creatives are showing.

Quote

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12

Better track - Page 6

Related Topics

Explore Topics