Reply to GM's Response No. 1 : GM is the person who introduces irrelevant material on almost every count, throughout his website. Yet I demonstrate the relevance of all my subject material below.

My Response: I respectfully disagree. My opinion, that Premanand continually introduces irrelevant subject material, has only stregthened.

Reply to GM's Response No.1 : First of all I am not duty bound to reply to GM's accusations against me. The purpose of my replying to his ‘Basava Premanand : Deception' articles (twice) was to collect proof as to how far he would go in his accusations I have collected enough materials to prove that his comments, accusations and response were not to find the truth but by hook or crook to absolve SSB. I firstly thought GM really wanted to know my reply to his comments. Check GM's comments and responses on all my articles and find who is introducing irrelevant subjects not specifically connected with each article, distracting from the fact his not been able to document his allegations or prove his accusations against me. Again he falsely and knowingly implies that I am not educated (by "non-educated guesses") while I have shown how he constantly makes mere guesses and demonstrates frequent ignorance of straightforward matters.

I have not disputed that the Inquest Report is not genuine, as the copy was got from the court. I dispute GMs speculations - what the Inquest Report on Sai Kumar Mahajan is:1) "White cotton full shirt with blood smears; on right side below shirt is torn 2) white pyjama is with blood stains 3) drawer with blood stain". With all the stab injuries does GM mean to say there were only blood stains or blood smears? Find out the differences between ‘blood smears', ‘blood stains' and ‘full with blood'. Within three hours of death only smears and stains? While Radhakrishna's shirt was full of blood?

The Inquest report and Post Mortem Certificates will not mention about poisoning. The explosives were not found before the murder when, as per protocol, the police had to fully search the Prasanthi Nilayam premises as political VIP's were visiting.

The explosives were not found even in the 1st search on June 7th, but later. GM's interpretation that "the inquest failed to specifically say that Radhakrishna's pants had blood on them does not mean they had no blood on them". GM's logic here is of the sort "if a half closed door is half open, then a fully closed door is fully open" applies here. The white shirt and banian were full of blood; the trouser did not have even blood smears or blood stains.The death time given in the inquest report is the time given by the Super Speciality Hospital. Read No.III (Vol. Page 342)

My Response: Premanand has no formal education in forensics or the medical field. Consequently, he is not qualified to write a book about "murders" and pass off his "uneducated" speculations, assumptions and blind guesses as the truth. Premanand refuses to even admit that he speculates! Premanand cites no forensic or medical experts who agree with his conclusions, nor does he cite any reputable experts, in any field, who support his contentions. I have shown that Premanand relied heavily on his own ideas and far-fetched assumptions regarding documents whose contents do not support his claims.

Regarding Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan's clothing, Premanand is basing his assumptions on the accuracy to the SS Hospital Inquest Reports (which made mention to blood stains on the clothes). Premanand speculated that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were not stabbed at the mandir but were poisoned and stabbed at the SS Hospital. First of all, Premanand has no proof to support this conspiracy. Secondly, if Premanand truly believes that the SS Hospital covered up Radhakrisna and Sai Kumar Mahajan's real causes of death, why does Premanand accept the Inquest Reports and their findings about the clothing? If the SS Hospital purposely covered up the real causes of death, then the Inquest Reports would be untrustworthy and inaccurate. In one instance (causes of death), Premanand rejects the Inquest Reports and their findings. In another instance (blood on clothing), Premanand accepts the Inquest Report and their findings. Premanand cannot have it both ways.

Notice how Premanand said, "The Inquest report and Post Mortems Certificates will not mention about poisoning." This is totally untrue! The whole purpose to the Post Mortem is to establish a cause of death. Post Mortem examinations are supposed to check for poisoning, among many other things: Reference. When Premanand said that the Post Mortem Certificates "will not mention about poisoning", this fully supports my contention that he lacks the basic knowledge to write about an issue he so profusely tries to defend.

Reply to GM's Response no.2 : GM has quoted the materials published in Murders in Sai Baba's bed Room (Vol II page 398 last para and Page 399 1st para). Here also it is his interpretation that is questioned and the logic he uses "if it is this, that also is this, if it is not this that also is not this". The two statements are quite different and he has not been able to prove anything by his interpretation and logic. "This would have been" does not mean that "this had been", except in GM's twisting misinterpretation.

What GM has stated is from the website he has quoted. I did not state that they were cremated in the electric crematorium. "To be cremated" does not mean the same as "(was) cremated". "And when the alarm system was activated it had to be stopped. Except for GM and SSB's devotees, no one would be confused about this.

My Response: Premanand is again citing his book, that neither I nor the majority of the general public have access to. Why doesn't Premanand give us the actual quotes or screen-captures from his book to support his argument? How difficult can that be? It appears that Premanand wants people to believe that there is additional information in his book, Murders In Sai Baba's Bedroom, that is purposely being withheld. In order to get the "truth" one must purchase his book. Sounds like a good tactic to solicit one's own vested interests rather than being forthcoming with alleged evidence. Until Premanand can substantiate his claims with factual information, he has not refuted anything I said.

Why did Premanand say, in the first place, "Moreover this would have been done in secrecy and the bodies sent to the Super Specialty Hospital to be cremated in the Electric Crematorium so that they disappear from earth"? If they were not creamated in an electric crematorium, why did Premanand say that? Is it possible that Premanand was prognosticating and making blind assumptions about what might have happened? Exactly. He was.

Premanand cannot even tell us when the alarm was sounded without referencing newspaper clippings and the falsified F.I.R.! In fact, Premanand does not know when the alarm was sounded, how long the alarm lasted, what kind of alarm was used, what the alarm looked like or anything near or far related. Where is the documented proof? I do not want anonymous stories. I do not want newspaper clippings. I do not want a falsified F.I.R. I want documented proof. One would think that a "skeptic" and "rationalist" could actually provide proof. Premanand can not.

Reply to GM's Response No. 3 : GM can only see me as being wrong on all counts. The question is answered in the wandering and disingenuous Guru Pournima Lecture of 3.7.1993 which avoids telling any important facts whatever. Clearly visible deception! SSB's statement about Radhakrishna was not given immediately after the 6 murders but only after 27days. I do not dispute the authenticity of the Guru Pournima Lecture transcript, but the only ask why SSB kept all his inmates fully silent and did not himself come out with truth.

Let GM first find out which events took place between 7 PM until the time Radhakrishna allegedly left to his sister's house. Why did SSB say that he drank butter milk at night which he never did before? SSB has not explained why Radhakrishna offered him butter milk. SSB's words are so emotional and rambling. GM can ask: ‘Did Radhakrishna go to his sister's home, and – if so – what did SSB do?' I did not state 7pm as being a fact and I well know that the transcript of SSB's discourse gives the time 7.30 PM for when SSB alleged Radhakrishna went to his sister's house.

My Response: Premanand originally said, "According to SSB this happened at 7:30pm. Does GM believe that the story told by SSB and published by Sri Sathya Sai Publication Society (Vol.1 Page 366 in the book) is false? Did not Radhakrishna go out at 7.30pm and was not Sai Kumar Mahajan with SSB In his bedroom? When Radha Krishna knows that SSB does not drink buttermilk in the evening why did he offer butter milk to SSB? Was he afraid that the cooks had mixed the poison in the buttermilk? Was it to prove that the butter milk did not contain poison that SSB sipped a little?" The actual Guru Purnima Discourse is Referenced Here. In this discourse, there is no mention to "7:30pm", Sai Kumar Mahajan being in SSB's bedroom or anything about poison being in the buttermilk. Where did Premanand get this information from? Certainly, he did not get it from the Guru Purnima Discourse.

Premanand speculated that Radhakrishna left at "7:30pm". Premanand speculated that Sai Kumar Mahajan was in SSB's bedroom. Premanand speculated that there was poison in the buttermilk. Premanand speculated about the reason why Radhakrishna brought buttermilk to SSB. Premanand then asked me the question, "Did Radhakrishna go to his sister's home, and – if so – what did SSB do?" I do not know. Nor am I willing to make any assumptions when I do not know. Premanand, on the other hand, fully speculated about these things, yet refuses to admit that he is speculating! What more proof does one need to clearly see that Premanand is basing his conspiracy theory on speculations, assumptions and far-fetched guesses?

Reply to GM's Response No.4 : The cause for the murder "starts with" does not mean the same as "the source of" these illicit activities. They are quite different. (Page 402 vol 2). Another of Morèno's calculated confusions. Who brought the story of poison in the buttermilk? Why did SSB mention drinking butter milk? I need SSB's answers and not GM's. If Sai Kumar Mahajan was not there in SSB's bed room, how could he be stabbed as alleged in the FIR? This proves that the FIR was a concocted one and the aides were not stabbed by the alleged assailants. Then how come the stab injuries on their bodies?

About buttermilk: why did Radhakrishna offer it to SSB when he knew SSB drink buttermilk in the night? The next was a question: "Who stated that SSB told that poison was not in the butter milk?" This is the way in which GM twists and fakes my sentences to suit his purpose. He will claim anything, but I do not accept that I quoted SSB's discourse as if SSB is being truthful and honest". Only the mentally deficient can fail to understand that some part of SSB's statements may be true (it would be hard to lie 100% in everything), just as parts are almost certainly not true. That was my standpoint. Yet when GM writes: "Premanand takes segments he likes and discards segments he doesn't" he is overlooking that he always does just this himself.

My Response: More equivocation from Premanand. Premanand said, "The cause for the murder starts with the sexual abuse of the students, the misappropriation of unaccounted funds flowing into the hands of the coterie, the financing of the coterie, changing black money into white and white to black through manipulations, murders of the devotees who see through these unlawful activities, the smuggling of the outdated weapons to the third world countries wherein the politicians profit much more than the cost which was spent by the Defense department and lastly through the smuggling of narcotics." Premanand made his case for all of these illegal activities as originating from SSB's alleged sexual abuse of students. Now, Premanand is saying that is not what he meant to say. What did he mean to say?

Premanand originally said, "This story was told by SSB to his audience - that the poison was not in the butter milk." This comment is not a "question". Once again, SSB never made any mention to "the poison was not in the buttermilk". How am I "twisting" Premanand's words? He said it! Furthermore, Premanand cannot substantiate this comment whatsoever.

Since the FIR was falsified, no one knows what actually transpired. Premanand guessed what he thought happened. He does not know what really happened. Once again, Premanand is basing his views on speculations, not any sort of documented evidence.

Reply to GM's Response No. 8 : 1. I have not accepted that N.Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan died at 9:50 PM and 9:45 PM respectively. I only pointed out the Inquest Reports. I have accepted the Post Mortem Report as genuine, but not that it is in Telugu. So GM is falsely misinterpreting the words of the Post Mortem Report, claiming they were in Telugu.2. They were honest in this case. 3. I deny the FIR that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were stabbed in the SSB's residence after 10.30PM. 4. I have accepted that Radhakrishna and Sai Mahajan died because of poison as explained earlier. I need not substantiate anything to GM. 5. I accepted that the 4 assailants entered the mandir at about 10.30 PM based on the receipt of the telegram at 10.05 PM There is no need to cite any court documents or any eye witnesses to support it. The newspaper reports filed in the writ petition have not been refuted by the court nor by the advocates of SSB in the case, nor were any affidavits filed to that effect!

There are no contradictions. I have not contended anywhere that Radhakrishna was poisoned by drinking buttermilk – and GM provides no documentary evidence for this. Nor Sai Kumar Mahajan. This is not a speculation, as the 4 alleged assailants cannot stab them at 10.30pm if they were dead before 9.50 PM and 9.45 PM As they were in the Super Speciality Hospital there cannot be any other conclusion. The alleged time of death in the Inquest Report is given by the doctors of the Super Speciality Hospital and the Inquest Report is not made by the doctors. The Inquest Report on Radhakrishna only says "it seems" (page 342 vol I para IX and X. It is in the FIR that the occurrence of crime at 10.30pm information received. Distance from police station to the place of occurrence ¼ furlong. All four injured were shifted to Super Speciality Hospital. While the Inquest Report on Sai Kumar Mahajan states (vol 1 page 346 ParaX "it is likely". The Inquest Reports have not stated that Anil Patley, Vishnu Bhat were in the Super Speciality Hospital.

The proof of the telegram received by Suresh Santharam Prabhu is in the register in the telegraph office.

GM can confuse the people but not me and I do not expect others blindly to believe me. And if he considers that my conclusions are unsubstantiated, I have not confirmed the time of death but quoted the Inquest Report and if the Inquest Report and the statements of SSH is true, it is not possible for the alleged assailants to stab them in SSB's residence at 10.30pm. The response of SSB in his discourse is based on SSH's information given to the inquest officer and this ought to have come immediately, not 26 days after the murder incident.

I have not accepted the SSH and inquest line for Radhakrishna's and Mahajan's death. I have not contended that the two were stabbed at SSH. What I stated was that when the alleged assailants entering SSB residence at about 10.30 they cannot stab the aides in the residence as they were in SSH at that time - dead already by 9.50 PM and 9.45 PM, according to the doctors. Yes, SSB got it covered up. The Inquest Report does not state anything about the two other aides receiving treatment at the same time as Radhakrishna and Mahajan. No one had verified that Bhat and Patley were in the hospital undergoing treatment. Even in the FIR only mentions: "it is further learnt that all the four injured were shifted to SSH. I found all doors of Mandir were bolted from inside." If all the doors of the mandir were bolted from inside, it is not explained how the 4 aides were shifted to SSH.

My time line is not based on a falsified FIR. There is no need to substantiate my time line as the records themselves prove it. The factual documents are there. It is not my audacity but what the documents prove. I have not used newspaper clippings as evidence. The newspaper clippings did not rely on the FIR

My Response: On his original response, Premanand said, "First of all N.Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan cannot be stabbed by the alleged assailants at 10.30 PM because they were in the super speciality hospital and died there at 9.50 and 9.45 pm...the inquest report states that they were in the super speciality hospital before 9.50 and 9.45 PM and were dead...I have not confirmed time of 10 PM for Radha Krishna as he was already dead in super speciality hospital at 9.50 PM..." Now, however, Premanand is saying that he does not accept the times given on the Inquest Reports. Furthermore, he does not accept the times given on the FIR either. If Premanand rejects these two sources, then one is left to conclude that his assumptions are based on mental whimsy and not factual data. When did SSB's 2 aides die? Apparently, Premanand does not know! How then does he expect anyone to believe him? If Premanand does know what time SSB's 2 aides died, he should supply the general public with the necessary documentation.

It is shocking that Premanand said, "I have accepted that Radhakrishna and Sai Mahajan died because of poison as explained earlier. I need not substantiate anything to GM." For Premanand's information, he is not supposed to be "substantiating anything" for me. He is supposed to be "substantiating" his claims to the general public who have been fed a highly inaccurate and contradictory story regarding the 1993 Police Shooting incidents. Premanand's reply proves that he cannot factually substantiate his claim that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were poisoned. If Premanand can substantiate his claim with actual documentation why hasn't he been forthcoming with it? Furthermore, Premanand contended that Bhat and Patley did the poisoning. Where is the proof to support this claim? As one can see, the more Premanand talks, the bigger and bigger the holes get in his conspiracy theory.

Premanand said, "I accepted that the 4 assailants entered the mandir at about 10.30 PM based on the receipt of the telegram at 10.05 PM...The proof of the telegram received by Suresh Santharam Prabhu is in the register in the telegraph office." Once again, Premanand established his time line based on a newspaper clipping from the Mathrubhumi. The Mathrubhumi newspaper claimed that an alleged telegram (that no one has seen) was allegedly registered in the Telegraph Office (which has never been independently verified). Neither Premanand, the Mathrubhumi, or anyone else for the matter, has the "register" (or a copy to it) from the Telegraph Office. Consequently, Premanand is basing his time line soley on the contents and allegations made in a newspaper clipping taken from the Mathrubhumi newspaper.

In this response, Premanand repeatedly said that he does not accept the SS Hosptial Inquest Reports. However, when it comes to the issue of blood on Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan's clothing, Premanand is waving the Inquest Reports and shoving them in people's faces trying to make his case that something mysterious happened. Once again, Premanand flip-flops on his views about the integrity to the SS Hospital Inquest Reports.

Where is the proof that Sai Baba covered anything up? Where is the evidence? There is none! Premanand can only cite newspaper clippings and resort to frenzied speculations to form his conspiracy theory.

Reply to GM's Response No. 9 : SSB's Guru Pournima Discourse cannot all be taken on face value, as it was given 27 days after the murders. There was criticism in the newspapers as to how the 4 aides were stabbed at 10.30 PM when they were in SSH, the time given by SSH doctors for Radhakrishna's death. But what about Sai Kumar's death time, which he did not mention?

My Response: If SSB's Guru Purnima Discourse cannot "be taken at face value", then why did Premanand cite it in the first place? Premanand said, "According to SSB this happened at 7:30pm. Does GM believe that the story told by SSB and published by Sri Sathya Sai Publication Society (Vol.1 Page 366 in the book) is false? Did not Radhakrishna go out at 7.30pm and was not Sai Kumar Mahajan with SSB In his bedroom? When Radha Krishna knows that SSB does not drink buttermilk in the evening why did he offer butter milk to SSB?...This story was told by SSB to his audience - that the poison was not in the butter milk." After I conclusively proved that all of these citations from Premanand were incorrect, Premanand now contends that the discourse "cannot all be taken on face value, as it was given 27 days after the murders". More face-saving hypocrisy from Premanand.

Reply to GM's Response No. 10 : The word ‘opinion' is printed on the Post Mortem Certificate and is not a word added by the Doctors. This can be verified from the Post Mortem Report. The Post Mortem Reports were not translated from Telugu to English and they were and are in English. So GM's speculations on this count do not stand up either. GM has thus twisted even the Post Mortem Reports so his statement that I am being completely disingenuous reverts back on him.

The crucial facts would be only in the forensic reports which have been suppressed by the government. Though the stab injuries on Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar are mentioned in the Post Mortem Report, unless there is mention that these stab injuries were Ante mortem it cannot be considered that they died of stab injuries. But the doctor has specifically used the word "would appear". Even in the Inquest Report the officer states "it seems" for Radhakrishna and "it is likely" about Sai Kumar Mahajan (vol 1 page 346 ParaX). No one contradicted that there were no stab injuries, but the question was whether the stab injuries were Ante Mortem or Post Mortem.

The Inquest Report is based on the information given by SSH doctors and their paper work cannot be different. Why should I get the examiners' clarification and their sworn affidavits? Why did GM not get them to prove my conclusions false? I have not talked to the Doctors of SSH or the persons who prepared the Inquest Report, as my conclusions are based on their Inquest Reports. As already explained I cannot be accused of speculating as to the contents of the English Post Mortem Reports when they were never translated from Telugu, already being in English? So GM is completely at sea and trying to drag others in after him.

My Response: I was under the impression that all these documents were written in Telugu and translated into English. It appears that the SS Hospital Inquests were written in Telugu and translated into English, and that is where I got this impression from. Nevertheless, it all boils down to this: The Post Mortems do not say that SSB's two aides did not die from stab injuries. Period. Premanand contends that the Post Mortems say the exact opposite! If SSB's two aides did not die from stab injuries, why didn't the Examiner say exactly that? Was the Examiner incompetent? The fact of the matter is that the Examiner never said that SSB's two aides did not die from stab injuries. Just because the words "would appear", "it seems" and "it is likely" were used, Premanand speculated that SSB's 2 aides did not die from stab injuries. Premanand cannot make this presupposition because he is not a Forensic Expert or a Post Mortem Examiner. Since SSB's 2 aides were still alive after being stabbed, the wording on their Post Mortems is bound to be different. Premanand is making criminal allegations against someone in the Sai Org for allegedly poisoning SSB's two aides and trying to cover up their murders by stabbing them. Premanand feels that it is a triviality to get a sworn affidavit from an Expert to support his claims. Rather, Premanand expects us to blindly believe him, despite the fact that he has no education in the Forensic, Post Mortem or Medical fields. How absurd is Premanand's argument? It is totally absurd.

Reply to GM's Response No. 11 : GM's speculations are based on falsity without contacting the doctors who conducted the post mortem (see 2 paras below). He is simply carrying on the same tirade mentioned in his response no. 9 which is replied. He can chuckle any time any where for his self-reflected brilliance, but others won't. GM's speculations about Tal Brook are irrelevant here and do not concern me anyhow.

My Response: I will aptly note that Premanand does not want to comment on the relevance of Tal Brooke's book to the 1993 Police Shooting incidents.

Reply to GM cont. : I have not failed in Indian courts of law nor have I cooked up stories. In my Writ Petitions against SSB 1) a judge cannot be a judge in his own cause and 2) court being court of records a judge cannot base his judgement on his unproved beliefs. Some petitions (eg. on the Gold Control Act) did not win through due to SSB-corrupted judges and other conditions of which GM knows nothing. Both I and my advocates certainly know more about Indian law than GM, who fully demonstrates here and in former articles the deepest ignorance of the procedures, conditions of proof etc. involved. How many cases has he so far raised in Indian courts? What is most amusing is GM's ignorant posturing. PREMANAND PLEASE CHECK THIS LAST PARA CAREFULLY – IS IT O.K.?

My Response: Premanand filed a Writ Petition and it was dismissed. Premanand filed a lawsuit against SSB for violating the Gold Control Act and it was dismissed. Premanand stated that the Judges are corrupt. If Premanand and his "advocates" know so much about the Law, why can't he win a case?

One will notice how someone is helping Premanand write his replies (I wonder why Premanand can't do it for himself) and said, "PREMANAND PLEASE CHECK THIS LAST PARA CAREFULLY – IS IT O.K.?" Apparently, whomever is proofreading and publishing Premanand's responses is unconcerned (or too lazy) to remove their comments from the text! I'd suggest Premanand hire more intelligent help.

Reply to GM's Response No.12 : GM virtually claims here and elsewhere that Swami Premananda was innocent, but wants to creep away from his assertions by tricky semantics. GM also did not mention that "many people believe" does not include him, nor has he documented why he is believed to have been framed. GM should document that Dr. Wall really made the above statement. The ‘click here' ought to have been unbiased, but the legal issues quoted by GM in the click here is the statements given by Premananda's followers and he has not cared to document the various advocates' statements or the judgements in the lower courts up to the supreme court. Whether Dr.Wilson J.Wall is a world-renowned DNA specialist, has not been proved in the ‘click here' article. There was only an advertisement on his book. But in his scientific wisdom, GM can no doubt evaluate who is expert in DNA testing and who is not?

This reply by me is on the speculation GM made "this event by the way might explain why the specific references to the injuries being anti mortem was not specifically stated. "I have never stated that it was not Dr. C.P.Venkatanarayana who did the post mortems of Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan (Vol Pages 347 to 349) I have already replied that I have consulted the doctors who conducted the post mortems and the proof that I contacted them and also forensic experts. GM is an expert in distorting the documents. Who said that Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan were not dead when they arrived at the SSH? The submission by SSH is not valid. Where is the paper trail? Unless he documents them I cannot reply. I have already replied why the Post Mortem Reports did not contain the information that they were poisoned.

My Response: Premanand said, "GM virtually claims here and elsewhere that Swami Premananda was innocent, but wants to creep away from his assertions by tricky semantics." Where did I claim that Swami Premananda is innocent? Where did I say that? Why can't Premanand reference my actual words to support his assertions? Why is Premanand lying? I already provided Premanand with my actual words and he continues to deny and twist them into something they are not. This proves that Premanand is an unaccountable and irresponsible "scientist", "rationalist" and "skeptic". Once again, my actual words were, "Many people believe that Swami Premananda was framed and even the police officers, at the jail where he is at, believe he is not guilty. He was even allowed to leave the prison, to visit his ashram, for several weeks.". Where did I say that I believed Swami Premananda was innocent? I didn't say that. Premanand is a liar, a deceiver and a fraud skeptic. He just proved it.

Dr. Wall is not a devotee of Swami Premananda. Dr. Wall is a world-reknown DNA specialist. It is Dr. Wall's opinion that Swami Premananda is being framed and the the DNA case against him is totally fabricated. As a matter of fact, Dr. Wall is writing a book about the misuse of DNA evidence and is citing the story of Swami Premananda as an example. The comments I cited from Dr. Wall did not come from his book. They were comments that Dr. Wall made in the Court Report he submitted in the Swami Premananda case. Apparently, Premanand is unaware of this fact (despite claiming to be fully conversant with the case). Why doesn't this surprise me?

I have already discussed Premanand's baseless speculations about Radahakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan being poisoned. Premanand has no proof, documentation or Experts that support this erroneous contention. Premanand is now contending that the SS Hospital Inquests are not valid. In his original responses, Premanand kept citing the SS Hosptial Inquests. Realizing the problems I pointed out, now Premananad is saying the Inquests are invalid. If they are invalid, why did Premanand keep citing them in the first place (especially in relation to the blood on the clothing)? If the SS Hospital Inquests are invalid, then Premanand does not know when Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan died. He has no clue. So how can he say anything about the assaults with any certainty? He can't. And that is exactly the point I have been making all along.

Reply to GM's Response No.13 : GM cannot point out where I mentioned that K.Sai Ram tried to enter Prasanthi Nilayam around 10.30pm to deliver what was purported to be a telegram to the Sai Baba from another godman Chandraswamy. I have already explained the telegram question Any one may get the documentation from the government departments on the asking when the Right To Information Act 2005 (Act No 22 of 2005) would come to force on 12-10-2005.

My Response: Premanand already attempted to explain the telegram issue. He failed. Premanand based his speculations, about the alleged telegram, on a newspaper clipping he found in the Mathrubhumi. That's it. No one has seen the alleged telegram and no one has a copy to the alleged register from the Telecommunication Office. Apparently, Premanand does not have (and never did have) the information about the alleged telegraph. Now, however, Premanand is saying that one will be able to obtain the necessary information through the Right To Information Act. All along Premanand had been making unsubstantiated allegations regarding the telegram. As it turns out, he never had the proof to begin with. He is hoping to get the proof through the Right To Information Act! Now people can see why I rightly accuse Premanand of promoting a "conspiracy theory".

Regarding the quote "K.Sai Ram tried to enter Prasanthi Nilayam around 10.30pm to deliver what was purported to be a telegram to the Sai Baba from another godman Chandraswamy", Premanand did not give the full quote. This quote was taken from Premanand's Writ Petition. What I quoted was, "K. Sai Ram tried to enter Prashanti Nilayam around 10-30 p.m. to deliver what was purported to be a telegram to the Sai Baba from another godman Chandraswamy. It is on record of the post office that a telegram was delivered to Suresh Shantaram Prabhu addressed to Sai Baba." Premanand was arguing about the name discrepancy when comparing the FIR to the newspaper clipping he found in the Mathrubhumi.

Reply to GM's Response No.14 : Why did GM not add the complete sentence 13(i)."It is claimed that the four assailants namely (1) E.K.Suresh Kumar (2) Jagannathan , (3) Suresh Shantaram Prabhu but started my affirmation middle way from (4) K.Sai Ram? And while it is made clear in the next sentence that the telegram was delivered to Suresh Shantaram Prabhu (documented by GM himself in his response No. 13). I stated: "purported to be a telegram (as alleged in the FIR and the inquest reports and later was found to be a telegram to SSB).

As on record with the Telecommunication department, the court would have verified it if it's truth were in doubt, But it was not. It is for the department and the court to prove that my affirmation was false and take contempt of court action against me for filing a false affidavit.

My Response: Once again, Premanand's Writ Petition was dismissed for other entirely valid reasons. Premanand cannot (and has not) provided us with any documented proof that the Telecommunication Department had a record that Suresh Santharam Prabhu received a telegram from them. Where is the proof? Premanand is again resorting to the contents of a newspaper clipping (from the Mathrubhumi) to support his speculations.

Reply to GM's Response No. 15 : See my writ petition in which the courts considered that CBI enquiry was unnecessary because the CB-CID had done their work which was fair and impartial. The court did not find that the telegram was false.

My Response: Premanand's Writ Petition was dismissed for other valid reasons. Had the Court truly considered accepting the Writ Petition, the facts about the Telegram would have been made public.

Reply to GM's Response No. 16 : I have covered this fully already.

My Response: I will aptly note that Premanand cannot support his conspiracy theory about Radhakrishna and Sai Kumar Mahajan being poisoned with potassium cyanide.

Reply to GM's Response No.17 : GM can question them and not me. I have not stated that they are refusing to act. GM's knowledge is so shallow he does not even realise that they can act only on specific orders from the state and central government. This is proved by the State Government closing this murder case on as RDO's report suppressing the CB-CID report by throwing it in cold storage. About the information on the agencies and the government I am not interested as these are about them and GM can refer to them in his speculations about them. That the governments did not take any action against me strongly supports my statements published in the book ‘Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room'.

My Response: Premanand said, "The A.P. state government, the central government, central excise and customs department, the law enforcement department, state CB- CID, C.B.I, CVC, Courts- all know what is happening in Sai Baba's Empire." Consequently, Premanand is accusing all of these departments and agencies of being corrupt and failing to act against SSB. If these departments and agencies know "what is happening in Sai Baba's Empire", and refuse to act or speak out, this means that they are corrupt as well. Once again, what other inference is there to make?

Premanand is free to voice his conspiracy theory in his book. Similarly, I am free to criticize his conpiracy theory on my website.

Reply to GM's Response No.18 : I am not concerned as to what Mr. Robert Priddy wrote before he learned about the reprint. The newspaper clippings are part of the unchallenged public records of events. I have already answered why I documented them. My questions are based on GM's deception series article while his questions are not based on my book "Murders in Sai Baba's Bed Room" from which he could have found all answers, I have not shamelessly speculated about the answers or tried to pass my conclusions off as the truth. GM can disagree with me but he cannot change his lies into truth.

My Response: When did Robert Priddy learn about the reprint? According to Premanand, his book was reprinted prior to October 2004. Priddy made his claim in May 2005. Premanand lashes out against me for perceived inaccuracies, but is "not concerned" when his fellow Anti-Sai banditeers are inaccurate themselves. As one can see, it is Premanand, not I, who is contradictory and resorting to dishonesty and subterfuge.

Reply to GM's Response no. 19 : I have not seen GM's contact link "on just about every single page on his web site". I rely on a part-time secretary and friends to do my internet work, print-outs and contacts as I am not an Internet technical person and know very little about computers. I do not know what GM means by side menu. I have not contacted any of the Anti-Sai Sites. I do not know who GM really is as he hides from the public any way to check on his actual identity. An anonymous person can use any alias and no one can be sure whether he is lying or not. I am certainly not going to answer and inform GM anything about the status of my legal processes. If GM is so curious to know about my complaints and follow ups he can subscribe for Indian Skeptic by sending US$ 12/- as annual subscription or by depositing US$ 150/- and become a life subscriber when he will be eligible for 50% discount on all my books and this amount has to be sent to me by Western Union Money Transfer to my name.

Check up GM's deception series and find out who is repeating like a trained parrot. GM has been shown time and again to be the one who demonstrates "this rudimentary lack of basic research"

My Response: On almost every single page to my site (minus google caches, screen-captures and yahoo posts) there is a link located at the very bottom of the page that clearly states (in bold, blue type) "Contact Me". On my main pages, my contact link is located on the side menu. This information is even located on the bottom to this page itself! Even if Premanand had his "secretary and friends" do his internet work for him, why didn't Premanand at least enquire to see if my former comments were true? Instead of verifying my comments, Premanand continues to deny it (essentially calling me a liar) like a "trained parrot"! This wholly supports my contention that Premanand lacks even the most basic, rudimentary researching skills. One will also notice how Premanand keeps trying to solicit his material to me. I have better things to purchase with my money than Premanand's sai-fi material. He even thinks I should pay him for it! He should be paying me to read it.

Reply to GM's Response No. 20 : Unless I copy the references made on GM's web site including 'click here' articles, the research on his allegations will not be complete and they are not 1000 pages but now an estimated 5000 pages or more. I cannot understand what is the connection with GM's sites and my article on SSB? In his article on oilings, GM has stated how he had a connection with SSB. I do not operate the computer and therefore did not know which of GM's sites (with their ever-changing contents to cover over his worst ignorant blunders) were started in 2000 or 2004. Nor does it have any significance except to him and this says absolutely nothing at all about my information regarding Sai Baba... since GM thinks so, he should start at primary school all over again.

The saibabaexposed.com web site is not mine (I have no other website either) but is owned by Conny Larsson, as GM well knows and has himself stated long ago on his website. However, I am informed that a technical copying mistake was made, giving the wrong e-mail address for the owner (my e-mail address was given instead there too). This has now been corrected.

My Response: Notice, once again, Premanand's exceedingly poor research into my site! I already stated, several times, that I was a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba into my early-twenties. Premanand is obviously unaware of this well known fact. Didn't Premanand read my site? Originally, Premanand claimed that he "copied about a thousand pages" from my domain. Within a matter of 4 months, I somehow generated 4,000 additional pages! This would mean, that in the last 4 months, I was allegedly creating 33+ pages per day, everyday for 4 months! More proof that Premanand has a propensity to loosely exaggerate. Who knows what else Premanand blatantly exaggerated about. Now everyone knows why I don't trust or believe Basava Premanand.

I have no idea what Premanand is talking about regarding his email link, etc. I never complained about any email errors on Conny's website. I have complained that whomever is publishing Premanand's responses is purposely giving an inoperable link to my pages. Now, however, whomever is publishing Premanand's responses is refusing to even provide a link at all! Such shameless deception, it is unbelievable! One will find no such fear, suppression or dishonesty on my site. I provide the full link to all of Premanand's articles on my pages. Apparently, Anti-Sai Activists have a weak case and they know it.

Reply to GM's Response No.21 : I am not mute on the status of my complaints. I know some action will be taken as they cannot put my complaints in the dustbin. I cannot discuss publicly or to an anonymous defamer. GM can question Murali Krishna Yachendra whether he was contacted by the Law Enforcement Department. When he claims he has nothing to do with SSB and not documented whether he is carrying on his deception series on behalf of SSB with his it is sheer shameless cheek on his part to expect that I will share any information with him on legal or any other matters. I am simply engaging in my well known (and now fully documented) propagation of facts and relevant viewpoints Canadian Foreign Affairs are totally irrelevant to this, I refer only to Indian Affairs. I know perfectly well that the state police in Andhra Pradesh do not regulate the Internet, also that every state has a cyber crime department. Recently some Internet crime cases have been taken up and the persons were arrested. More developments to regulate and punish misusers of the Internet are coming all the time around the world. GM is welcome to come to India and fight his case. Freedom of speech does not imply the automatic right to libel and vilify any one or even to state untruths and deceptions. GM's only evident purpose has been to deceive, cover up and make serious false allegations backed only by lightweight, irelevant and fallacious arguments. They are now on record permanantly.

The Right to Information Act has been promulgated and would come into force on 12.10.2005. So several unanswered questions by SSB and his leaders would come to light including the copy of the confidential GO, the CB-CID Report and the enquiry report of the RDO on which the murder case was closed. The law enforcement department would be forced to tell what has happened to their complaints and what action has been taken on them. The questions which GM is demanding I answer, he can address to the law enforcement department, the government and the judiciary. The state and central government may exempt SSB and his leaders as a special case to give information of the CB-CID report and the report by RDO on which basis the murder case was closed on a confidential Government Order. But in that case this would question the credibility of the Government in enacting "The Right to information Act –2005.

My Response: Let me make this clear (although it has already been made clear on the bottom to my webpages): I am not associated with, working for (directly, indirectly or otherwise) or affiliating myself, in any way, shape or form, with the Sathya Sai Organization, the Sathya Sai Trust, Sathya Sai Baba or any Sai Center or Sai Group. Can I make this any more clear to Premanand? There is no convincing a conspiracist.

If Premanand is not willing to share the legal aspects about his complaint against Yachendra, then why does Premanand keep harping about it publicly? Premanand keeps boasting about his complaints against Yachendra, but failed to cite any sort of development or action against Yachendra. I cannot accept Premanand's claims without proof. If Premanand wants to withhold the proof, that is his choice. Just don't expect me to believe him.

On Premanand's other articles, he said, "but already to the law enforcement department, the Collector of Nellore District and the Hon.Governor of the Andhra Pradesh to take action against him under cyber crime for vilifying and defaming me on the internet with lies...I had gone to meet the Superintendent of Police, Nellore and District Collector of Nellore District to find how far my complaints have been investigated. I already gave a copy of GM's article to them and promised my reply to his vilifying article...I have already sent a copy of my reply to GM's allegations documented fully to the Law Enforcement Department...I have also filed my reply with a copy of Gèrald Morèno's refutation with the Law Enforcement Department early in July." Now, however, Premanand said, "I know perfectly well that the state police in Andhra Pradesh do not regulate the Internet"! Another Pretend-anand flip-flop! Enough said!

I am not slandering or making libellous comments about Premanand. I don't believe him or his allegations against SSB. So I am giving entirely valid reasons why I believe this. In the course of our discussions, the only who has made slanderous and libellous comments is Premanand. And I have the proof. He claimed that the Sai Organization is utilizing me to spread falsehoods against him, I am making profits off of my websites, I am being secretly funded, I am an "adept in faking even published newspaper articles", I "threatened" him, I tried to "blackmail" him and that he has "evidence" that that I made international phone calls to solicit my site! Where did I falsely accuse Premanand without providing reasons to back up my opinions? I have not made blind attacks against Premanand (like he has done with me).

According to the Rights To Information Act the following is exempt from disclosure:

1. information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence
2. information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
3. information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
4. information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; 
5. information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
6. information received in confidence from foreign Government;
7. information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
8. information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
9. cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;
10. information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual;
11. Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.