Hi folks!
I m just a deseemoron; a village idiot really. So please don't take it to heart if I ask a few uncomfortable questions.
Sirs, will somebody tell me as to how is it upheld that Maria is not a killer; that she did not participate in hapless Neeraj Grover's murder? Where's the evidence to establish this? If I say that she too is a murderer; that she too joined Emile Jerome Mathew in actively killing Neeraj, how will you fault me or disprove my contention? What the hell am I saying, you'll ask? Let me explain.
First of all, I m not at all saying that she had any hand in the first round of stabbing, which was probably committed entirely by Emile in a state of rage, as a pure crime of passion and that Maria was merely a helpless bystander who was too scared to interfere after already getting injured on her initial interjections. What I m saying is that she participated in the murder afterward; after having returned from the shops where she had gone for purchasing a butcher's knife and the three large bags. Now here's my story:
When Maria returns from the store, she and Emile find that Neeraj is still alive, but too injured to make any move or make any sound. First they are furious, but then a vicious idea comes to Emile or both of them. To spite him, they perform wild sex right there; right in front of him. Alternately, may be when she returns from the store, they take him as dead, but in actual fact he is still alive; still breathing though not noticeably. In other words, if even at this stage he had been taken to a hospital, probably he would have been saved.
Then, while he is still breathing, they proceed to cut him into pieces, fifty of them, hundred, three hundred, whichever; who's there to count? Thereafter, they stuff his body pieces into the bags, have their shower, a hearty meal, put the bags in the borrowed car and drive down to a God forsaken place, in a jungle by the sea. They burn the disjointed corpse and bury it - all the parts included, in a freshly dug hole in the ground. When the police searches later, they find only some unburnt bones to pick, which perhaps did match Neeraj's DNA.
Now, how would you prove that it did not happen, the way I've stated? Where's the proof to the contrary? There's no forensic evidence either way, anyway. Does it not happen or has it not happened before, that a person has survived grievous body injuries or even ruthless multi stabbings? And I m not even reflecting on all the animalistic, inhuman acts they committed when they cut Neeraj's body into parts, which too perhaps is not less than any murder anyway. I am only saying that he was still alive when they cut him and that Maria is also his murderer just as Emile is. Prove me wrong; and if you can not, then, how can you hold her guilty only for participating in the destruction of the evidence? How can your judgment be solely based on her testimony; on what she says; when you know that she has changed her testimony so many times?
Is it not a travesty of justice?
Sirs, I want to know, what you think of what I've said, for after all I m merely a deseemoron; a village idiot.
Deseemoron
I m just a deseemoron; a village idiot really. So please don't take it to heart if I ask a few uncomfortable questions.
Sirs, will somebody tell me as to how is it upheld that Maria is not a killer; that she did not participate in hapless Neeraj Grover's murder? Where's the evidence to establish this? If I say that she too is a murderer; that she too joined Emile Jerome Mathew in actively killing Neeraj, how will you fault me or disprove my contention? What the hell am I saying, you'll ask? Let me explain.
First of all, I m not at all saying that she had any hand in the first round of stabbing, which was probably committed entirely by Emile in a state of rage, as a pure crime of passion and that Maria was merely a helpless bystander who was too scared to interfere after already getting injured on her initial interjections. What I m saying is that she participated in the murder afterward; after having returned from the shops where she had gone for purchasing a butcher's knife and the three large bags. Now here's my story:
When Maria returns from the store, she and Emile find that Neeraj is still alive, but too injured to make any move or make any sound. First they are furious, but then a vicious idea comes to Emile or both of them. To spite him, they perform wild sex right there; right in front of him. Alternately, may be when she returns from the store, they take him as dead, but in actual fact he is still alive; still breathing though not noticeably. In other words, if even at this stage he had been taken to a hospital, probably he would have been saved.
Then, while he is still breathing, they proceed to cut him into pieces, fifty of them, hundred, three hundred, whichever; who's there to count? Thereafter, they stuff his body pieces into the bags, have their shower, a hearty meal, put the bags in the borrowed car and drive down to a God forsaken place, in a jungle by the sea. They burn the disjointed corpse and bury it - all the parts included, in a freshly dug hole in the ground. When the police searches later, they find only some unburnt bones to pick, which perhaps did match Neeraj's DNA.
Now, how would you prove that it did not happen, the way I've stated? Where's the proof to the contrary? There's no forensic evidence either way, anyway. Does it not happen or has it not happened before, that a person has survived grievous body injuries or even ruthless multi stabbings? And I m not even reflecting on all the animalistic, inhuman acts they committed when they cut Neeraj's body into parts, which too perhaps is not less than any murder anyway. I am only saying that he was still alive when they cut him and that Maria is also his murderer just as Emile is. Prove me wrong; and if you can not, then, how can you hold her guilty only for participating in the destruction of the evidence? How can your judgment be solely based on her testimony; on what she says; when you know that she has changed her testimony so many times?
Is it not a travesty of justice?
Sirs, I want to know, what you think of what I've said, for after all I m merely a deseemoron; a village idiot.
Deseemoron
No comments:
Post a Comment