• SATHYA SAI BABA
• ROBERT PRIDDY
• TOPIC: June 6th 1993 Police Shootings
• ROBERT PRIDDY REVISITS POLICE SHOOTINGS

Exposing The Anti-Sai Activist: Robert Priddy

Robert Priddy, Author Of Source of The Dream, Dreams Up Scenario For June 6th 1993 Police Shootings:

Referenced From Robert Priddy’s Conspiracy Webpages At:

• home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/ExtraMurders.htm
• home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/Murders.htm
• home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/VKN1.htm
• home.no.net/anir/Sai/enigma/moremurders.htm

Police Shootings Menu (click on a link to go to relevant section):

• The Unfolding Of An Absurd And Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory
• Robert Priddy Cited V.K. Narasimhan
• Subbappayya And The Embellished Newspaper Article
• Robert Priddy’s Erroneous Speculations Continue
• Everyone Is Corrupt, According To Robert Priddy
• Additional Information Surfaces From Assailant’s Group Members
• The Police Shootings At Sathya Sai Baba’s Ashram On 06-06-93
• Robert Priddy - Exaggerations Continue
• Indian Newspaper References

The Unfolding Of An Absurd And Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory:

On the referenced pages above, Robert Priddy said he did not start to investigate the police shootings that occurred on June 6th 1993 until November of 1995 (two and a half years after the fact). Robert Priddy stated that he heard an account about the murders from an unnamed “high-standing Indian Administrative Service Vigilance Officer, whose close colleague had been personally involved in the early investigations”. Prompted to get more facts, Robert Priddy further stated, “I set about getting inside information from persons whose judgement and honesty I could really trust”. Again, no names were cited. Robert Priddy then stated that he verified the “inside information” he got from unnamed people with press reports. Perhaps these unnamed people got their “inside information” from press reports to begin with (which would explain why the press reports allegedly confirmed their stories).

Robert Priddy then claimed (again, citing an unnamed source):

“later informed by an elderly and devoted Bangalore businessman, a contractor who worked on the hall at Brindavan (whose name I withhold for his sake) and whose close relative and ashram resident he claimed was there at the time that SSB was standing for some time behind the Prashanti temple where some women devotees and a number of students who had heard the alarm bells in the police station arrived.”

Robert Priddy contends this fact “has not been refuted - by any officials or SSB himself”. Of course, this is faulty reasoning. For example, I could say that a witness alleged that Sai Baba asked for ice cream and smoked a cigarette while waiting for the police to arrive. This must be true because it “has not been refuted by any officials or SSB himself”. Robert Priddy relies on newspaper clippings, hearsay, rumors, gossip and second-hand & anonymous stories to build his conspiracy theory.

Robert Priddy fully acknowledged that the investigation into the murders was a:

“complete travesty of police work, leaving almost nothing but loose ends, unquestioned eyewitnesses and a veritable rats nest of contradictory statements, doubtful and obviously concocted evidence”

I completely agree with this assessment. However, the implications of Robert Priddy’s observation about the police investigation, fully concedes that the evidence was contaminated and destroyed. Such being the case, how does Robery Priddy know the “facts”? Especially when the CID (who thoroughly investigated the evidence) could not establish the actual course of events. Robert Priddy never had access to the crime scene, was not present at the Ashram when the events unfolded and did not even begin to investigate the issue until 3-5 years after the fact. Again, Robert Priddy bases his “facts” on newspaper clippings, hearsay, rumors, gossip and second-hand & anonymous stories.

Robert Priddy Cited V.K. Narasimhan:

Robert Priddy unbelievably claimed that V.K. Narasimhan (a staunch Sai Devotee to his death in 2000) allegedly revealed in private (in 1996 or three years after the police shootings) “crucial facts” about the murders to him. V.K. Narasimhan is now deceased and cannot confirm or deny Robert Priddy’s comments that may have been misunderstood, remembered incorrectly, exaggerated, inferred, taken out of context or falsified. Furthermore, Robert Priddy waited another 2 years before he penned his alleged conversations with V.K. Narasimhan. It is also important to remember that VKN remained an ardent Sai Devotee to his death (7 years after the Police Shooting incidents despite Priddy’s rubbish attributed to him).

Click Here to view an article that VK Narasimhan wrote in praise of Sathya Sai Baba in Sanathana Sarathi, Special Issue, November 1999 (a little over 3 months before his death, proving that Narasimhan was devoted to Baba to his end). The first paragraph reads:

"There are certain periods in the history of mankind when the mortal beings of this earth witness epoch-making divine events with their own eyes. By far the most astounding event of this century is the Advent of Bhagavan Sri Sathya Sai Baba."

It is also amusing how Robert Priddy continually and unremittingly trashes and bashes VIPs as having “observably weak intellects” and:

“I find them mostly unconvincing personalities and too dummylike as devotees. They doubtless really want to believe the best and contribute to the best of all. But they are being duped too and are instrumental in drawing others in to be 'converted' and to get their minds 'washed clean'. There is another term for this long-term, disinformative and psychically-backed religious conversion: it is 'brainwashing', nothing less.”

Needless to say, Robert Priddy then flip-flopped and continually praised and cited the “brainwashed” VK Narasimhan who was one of Sathya Sai Baba’s most distinguished VIPs (having up to 3-5 interviews on almost a daily basis). Robert Priddy obviously conceded that he was also “brainwashed” for 17 - 26 years (when he was an ardent Sai Devotee who eulogized Sai Baba as God Incarnate and the Avatar of the Age) and brainwashed others with his “long-term, disinformative and psychically-backed religious conversion”. Robert Priddy exhibits the classic behaviors of an apostate as outlined by Bryan R. Wilson (late Emeritus Professor at All Souls College, Oxford).

Subbappayya And The Embellished Newspaper Article:

Robert Priddy cited “evidence” taken from newspapers clippings to make his case against Sai Baba. Robert Priddy forgot to say that many of the initial reports incorrectly claimed that Sathya Sai Baba was assassinated. Furthermore, Robert Priddy acknowledged that the newspapers published hundreds of articles, many of which contradicted each other and gave completely different versions of what they alleged happened that night. Very accurate, those Indian newspapers.

Robert Priddy cited the Home Minister S.B. Chavan and the FIR (First Information Report - Annexure 144) to support his claim that Sathya Sai Baba shouted “Fools, get out!”. The implication being that Sai Baba witnessed part of the events that transpired that night. First of all, Robert Priddy already conceded that he believed the Police lied and the FIR contained “concoted evidence”. So why did he cite the FIR as “evidence” if he believes that? Secondly, who heard Baba shout “Fools, get out!”? Robert Priddy said speculated that Sai Baba and the two surviving students were never interrogated by police or other officials. However, if Baba really shouted “Fools, get out!”, then someone had to be interrogated in order to get that information. However, no one knows who attributed the words of “Fools, get out” to Sathya Sai Baba. So despite Robert Priddy using this as “evidence”, he generates more questions he simply can’t answer.

Robert Priddy erroneously claimed that a young boy named “Subbappayya” was in Baba’s room at the time of the murders. There is only one mention to him in the newspapers and it was taken from the Indian Express (on the word of an alleged and anonymous “highly informed source”). Robert Priddy inaccurately quoted the Indian Express newspaper article and shamelessly embellished it with fraudulent information. Robert Priddy said:

“However, the Indian Express (13-6-1993) reported that a boy in is early teens - Subbappayya - who was in Sai Baba’s room when the assailants knocked saying there was a telegram for Sai Baba opened the door. They attempted to attack him, but the dagger only penetrated his shirt and he escaped unharmed. He bolted the door and alerted Baba to the impending danger. However, writes the Express, 'what sounds illogical is that if Subbappayya had closed the door and bolted it from behind, how could the alleged assailants enter Baba’s personal chambers after attacking the four guards on the ground floor? There are no indications of the alleged assailants or somebody applying pressure on the doors to open them.'”

The Actual Indian Express Article From 13-6-1993 Stated:

Notice that the following quote attributed to the Indian Express article by Robert Priddy is nowhere to be found in the article:

“what sounds illogical is that if Subbappayya had closed the door and bolted it from behind, how could the alleged assailants enter Baba’s personal chambers after attacking the four guards on the ground floor? There are no indications of the alleged assailants or somebody applying pressure on the doors to open them'”

So, where did Robert Priddy get this information from? Robert Priddy also claimed that Subbappayya was a boy in his “early teens” (which is not mentioned in the article either). Where did Robert Priddy get that information from?

Robert Priddy then asked two questions:

1. “The next great question is why was a young teenage boy in Sai Baba’s chambers at the time?”
2. “Further, why did the ashram authorities hide him away and deny police access to him for giving evidence?”

Regarding Robert Priddy’s first question, “why was a young teenage boy in Sai Baba’s chambers at that time?”, there is no evidence to back up the claim that there was a “young teenager” named “Subbappayya” in Sathya Sai Baba’s chambers. The only reference to “Subbappayya” came from an anonymous source mentioned once in the Indian Express Newspaper. No other newspaper referenced “Subbappayya”. There was one brief mention (in the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderbad, 9-6-1993) that said, “Even as the scuffle was going on, the Baba was rescued by one of his students who was present in the bedroom. The Baba was shifted to another living room on the ground floor through a secret passage by breaking open the glass panes”. Needless to say, this is yet another unproven scenario that cited no names and is not backed up with any official reports or documentation. “Subbappayya” does not exist as far as official documentation is concerned. His name does not appear in the FIR, official documents, police reports or any official records.

Regarding Robert Priddy’s second question, “Further, why did the ashram authorities hide him away and deny police access to him for giving evidence?” is answered and refuted in the very same Indian Express article Robert Priddy quoted from. The Indian Express article specifically said, “The officers investigating into the alleged attempt on Sri Satya Sai Baba on Sunday night have examined Subbappayya, an inmate of Prashanti Nilayam complex and a prime witness in the case, according to a highly informed source.” So why does Robert Priddy accept the part about Subbappayya being in Sai Baba’s room and then blatantly reject the part about the Investigating Officers examining Subbappayya?

Robert Priddy’s Erroneous Speculations Continue:

Robert Priddy then goes into “if’s”, “but’s”, “might’s”, “either’s”, “or’s” and “possibly’s”. Again, a lot of speculations and assumptions that have no verifiable evidence to back them up.

Robert Priddy wildly speculated as to where Baba fled, giving possible scenarios but not knowing what truly happened. Priddy said:

“It seems that Sai Baba’s movements were as follows: EITHER down the rear staircase from his rooms to the kitchen entrance opposite the South Prashanthi blocks. Into the ladies entrance to the mandir and through it to the garage building (into what is sometimes known as the green room?) OR through a door onto the 1st floor behind the balcony and through to a room on the 1st floor of the mandir”

Robert Priddy continued to speculate that the first assumption is the “most likely” as there were “reports that he (SSB) had spoken briefly to persons outside the rear of the mandir”. Again, no names are given and no actual reports cited. Despite not knowing where Sai Baba was at, Robert Priddy had the audacity to say:

“He (SSB) was in any case guarded in a room not 30 yards from the scene of the action while police conferred with ashram and central Trust authorities until the intruders were shot, some three hours later.”

This is rubbish. This is Priddy's speculations based on alleged information he obtained from unnamed officials, unnamed people, newspaper clipping and a deceased friend (who was a Sai Devotee to his death), 3 years after the murders occurred, penning his recollections 2 years after that!

Most of Robert Priddy’s conclusions are based on an alleged (and unbelievable) conversation between him and V.K. Narasimhan. Priddy alleged that VKN said the Central Trust blackmailed the police into executing the four assailants. Robert Priddy stated, “learning this to be indisputable fact shook my view of everything…” Nevertheless, Robert Priddy was never told what the blackmail was, has no evidence that the Central Trust blackmailed the police, has no evidence that the Central Trust talked with the Police and has no evidence what they talked about. Strange enough, VK Narasimhan remained an ardent Sai Devotee until his death in 2000 despite allegedly claiming that the Central Trust blackmailed the police! How believable is that? Robert Priddy then boasted that his blackmail claim is an “indisputable fact”. How can it be an “indisputable fact” when the “fact” in question is unsupported and unproven? Robert Priddy’s speculations are patently absurd.

Everyone Is Corrupt, According To Robert Priddy:

Robert Priddy found it unconscionable that the CBCID never officially questioned Sathya Sai Baba. However, it would not have mattered if the CBCID did question Sai Baba as it is the opinion of Robert Priddy and Basava Premanand that the CBCID is corrupt and would have sided with Sai Baba anyway. So either way, Sai Baba could never be redeemed in the eyes of Robert Priddy. Robert Priddy took this a step further and said that there was a “clumsy and despicable cover-up” from the “ashram, the police, and Andrah Pradesh State authorities and the Indian Government through the Home Minister, S.B. Chavan”. So, it does not matter if one, or all, of these departments investigated Sathya Sai Baba. Since they are all allegedly corrupt, they all would have sided with Sai Baba anyway. A no win situation. Robert Priddy carefully packages his conspiracy theory in such a way that he blindly accuses everyone of corruption, including the official departments he demands should have investigated the matter. Sounds rather extremist, if you ask me.

Additional Information Surfaces From Assailant’s Group Members:

Two individuals were suspected of complicity with the four assailants. Their names are Vijayashantharam Prabhu and Boyapati Ravindrabadu. Explosives and potassium cyanide were found in the Vocational Training Center and (after a month long search for them) they surrendered in Nagpur, India. In their deposition, they claimed that the four assailants never meant to harm Sathya Sai Baba (something confirmed by Sai Baba himself) and they were trying to relay information to Sai Baba about alleged corruption in the Central Trust and individuals in the ashram. Why Vijayashanthram had explosives and potassium cyanide in his living quarters in not fully known.

However, this creates an interesting scenario. The four assailants supposedly did not want to hurt Sathya Sai Baba. The four assailants aim, according to Vijayashantharam Prabhu and Boyapati Ravindrabadu, was to bring to Sai Baba’s attention alleged corruption in the Central Trust and some individuals in the ashram. Obviously (if this is true) Sathya Sai Baba was 100% innocent in the eyes of the four assailants. Yet, Robert Priddy sees it entirely different (despite admitting that the four assailants apparently intended no harm to Sai Baba). The four assailants resorted to Sathya Sai Baba as their only hope in bringing an end to the corruption they felt existed in the Central Trust. This would mean, of course, that the corruption they allegedly uncovered had absolutely nothing to do with Sathya Sai Baba.

The Police Shootings At Sathya Sai Baba’s Ashram On 06-06-93:

Robert Priddy stated that when the four assailants were barricaded in Sai Baba’s apartment that it was alleged by “many” that some villagers assisted MBA students to tie up and beat the four assailants brutally. Despite the claim that there were “many” who allegedly witnessed this, not even one person in 11 years has come forward with a first-hand account. Not even one of these alleged “many” gave an account to any newspaper reporter that was at Puttaparthi early on the scene. Yet, apparently, “many” of these people went around “alleging” what happened and nobody knows who they are! Another important fact to point out is that none of the four post mortems (home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/articles/courtrecords.html) performed on the four assailants, made any mention to any injury unrelated to firearm injuries. No mention of contusions, lacerations, scratches, abrasions or broken bones inconsistent with firearm injuries. This factual information wholly refutes the claim that the four assailants were bound and brutally beaten.

Then Robert Priddy claimed:

“according to a consistent eye-witness of the whole affair (a bank official interviewed shortly thereafter by the BBC), the younger brother of SSB (Janaki Ramaiah) had a ten minute discussion with SSB and Col. Joga Rao in the room at the opposite end of the temple where Baba had fled” and “Directly after this, the bank employee eye-witness reported, Janaki Ramiah ordered the killing of the four intruders whom he claimed had tried to murder Baba, saying: ‘Vallani kattesinaru, champeyundira..’ (‘They are tied. Now kill them’).”

Where did Robert Priddy get this information from? The BBC interview with the unnamed bank official is no where to be found in the list of newspaper articles cited by Robert Priddy. The bank official was not interviewed by the BBC. There is only one mention to a BBC correspondent and it came from the Dalit Voice (-Ref 01). The Dalit Voice, 19-7-1993 stated, “According to the visiting BBC correspondent, Jaswinder Singh’s on-the-spot reporting from Puttaparthi, the four alleged assassins were not killed by the police, but by Baba’s own people”. That is all the Dalit Voice said in regards to who killed the four assailants. Quite a different picture than the one fabricated by Robert Priddy. So when Robert Priddy said that the bank official “had a ten minute discussion with SSB and Col. Joga Rao in the room opposite end of the temple where Baba had fled”, Robert Priddy is lying. This quote is totally unsubstantiated and suggests that Robert Priddy fabricated it, hoping to deceive naive people. Perhaps he can supply us the BBC article in question? Robert Priddy cited 37 newspaper articles but left out the alleged BBC article that supports his claims. Why?

However, it is clear that the Deccan Chronicle (-Ref 02) wrote the article that Robert Priddy embellished and inaccurately quoted. The Deccan Chronicle, Hyderbad (26-6-1993) allegedly interviewed an anonymous bank official. Not only did the Deccan Chronicle say that the unnamed bank official was IN the mandir with about 60 students who beat, disarmed and tied the four assailants (which is unsupported by the post mortems), the Deccan Chronicle said that the bank official heard the four assailants say that they were only trying to “save the Baba” and that the four assailants were killed shortly after 11:30pm (supporting the police’s version of events, which Robert Priddy explicitly rejects).

So if we are to believe the Deccan Chronicle, this unnamed bank official:

• Went into the mandir with about 60 students.
• Saw the students beat, disarm and tie the four assailants.
• Heard the four assailants say they were only trying to save Baba.
• Heard Janaki Ramaiah tell the students (not the police) “they are tied, now kill them”.
• Claimed the students backed away when the police came at 11:30pm.
• Saw Janaki Ramaiah talk to the police for a few minutes (but did not hear what he said to them) and then claimed the police “swung into action” and he saw the police kill the four assailants in four different rooms, wiping out all the evidence “in a matter of seconds by the trigger-happy policemen”.

Despite the CBCID investigating this issue, isn’t it strange that they could not obtain first-hand depositions from even one single person, including the alleged bank official? Isn't it strange that despite these claims being obtained by newspaper reporters, no one else was able to verify or obtain them?

How did this unnamed bank official know where the police killed the four assailants unless he was right there with the police? How did this unnamed bank official’s testimony explain how the four men were killed in four different rooms if they were all tied up? Why did this “consistent” eye witness say the police fired upon the four assailants shortly after 11:30pm when Sri G. Balachanda (Lecturer in Economics, Sri Satya Sai Institute of Higher learning, Puttaparthi), Sri Sanjay Sahani (Lecturer in Commerce Brindavan, Whitefield, Bangalore), Sri Peeyushkmar (Sri Vatsava, Prasanthi Nilayam, Puttaparthi) and Col. Jogarao (Trustee, Satya Sai Trust), in their 162 Crpc statement, reveal that the firing took place around 1 a.m. in the early morning of June 7th 1993? Robert Priddy has openly stated that he believes the time given by the Sai Devotees (but chose, for some mysterious reason, to leave out the name of Col Jagarao, whom Robert Priddy often speaks of disfavorably). Despite believing these Sai Devotee witnesses, Robert Priddy also believes the unnamed bank official’s version of events! Robert Priddy wants it both ways, apparently taking snippets from one version and snippets from another and making a collage of events to support his flights of imagination. This shows how much attention to details Robert Priddy gave to his conspiracy theory. All of this information was obtained from Robert Priddy’s website. It is obvious that Robert Priddy’s statements are consistently inconsistent, vindictive and inaccurate.

Robert Priddy stated (once again, citing no proof and no names) that “high ranking officials and various MBA students” are still “prisoners” of circumstance and are withholding information in fear of Sathya Sai Baba and his Organization. There are two primary reasons why these officials and students may be keeping their silence: 1) Robert Priddy is right. These officials and students are silent due to fear and are helpless prisoners of circumstance or, 2) Robert Priddy is wrong. These officials and students did not know what happened, and are therefore refusing to wallow in conspiracy theories, assumptions and speculations. It’s been 11 years since the murders happened and not one of these “high ranking officials and various MBA students” has come forward supporting Robert Priddy and his frenzied speculations and assumptions.

Robert Priddy - Exaggerations Continue:

Robert Priddy openly acknowledged that he gave “exaggerated positive accounts” about Sathya Sai Baba when he was a devotee and now feels that it is his “public duty” to “correct the overblown propagandistic image of SSB sustained by his followers”. An “overblown propagandistic image” that Robert Priddy fully promoted and maintained when he was an ardent devotee for 17 - 26 years. After all, Robert Priddy believed, preached and even wrote a book eulogizing Sathya Sai Baba as God Incarnate.

And still (to this day) Robert Priddy states on his website:

“Some of what I experienced of SSB’s extraordinary and positive powers through many years is undeniable, even after the most rigorous skeptical investigations, and I do not regard him as any ordinary human being. I have simply had to realize that his actions in the worldly and human sphere are not infallible and are not always setting a perfect example for others.”

What a deeply conflicted statement. Robert Priddy has shown that he is a deeply conflicted person. This is evidenced in my email correspondence with him. Robert Priddy’s deep mental issues are confirmed when he maliciously posted pictures of the victim’s corpses, shot in the face, hands and torso, soaked in blood, combined with images of Sathya Sai Baba distributing sweets on his website. One can only wonder what kind of deviant and perverse amusement Robert Priddy’s felt when he posted those pictures on his website? Robert Priddy has complete and utter disregard towards the bereaved mothers and fathers (who are still Sai Devotees) who must endure the unfathomable anguish of seeing their son’s corpses publicly displayed (in true tabloid-like style) on Robert Priddy’s website. Robert Priddy is sick and perverse, to say the least.

Robert Priddy admitted to exaggerating. Robert Priddy has a propensity to exaggerate. Not only that, he has a keen propensity to speculate. By his own admission, Robert Priddy admitted that his past comments about Sai Baba were on one end of the spectrum. Now, one can see they are at the opposite end of the spectrum. If Robert Priddy exaggerated and helped feed a propagandistic image of Sai Baba when he was devoted to him, and now feels the need to correct his self admitted exaggerations by speculating, assuming and resorting to conspiracy theories, one can clearly see the modus operandi of Robert Priddy: The turmoiled, vindictive and not so Priddy side.

Indian Newspaper References: