VNN Editorial - Disinterested Third Party

EDITORIAL

October 4, 1999 VNN4861 Related VNN StoriesComment on this story

Disinterested Third Party

BY GOKULA DAS

EDITORIAL, Oct 4 (VNN) — I am Gokula Das (Greg Hooper). I offer my obeisance's to all Vaisnavas. I'm a licensed private investigator in Santa Rosa, CA and an initiate of Srila Prabhupada. Re: the poisoning issue, I have only heard one audio tape with commentary and seen a few online postings. I have not yet seen any other primary sources or evidence "documentation." But from what little I have seen so far in this matter, with one possible exception, I get the fearful impression that much hard work may be for naught. What seems like an "investigation," at this point for me, appears more like, some dedicated folks (Vaisnavas, all due my humble respects) gathering evidence in a rather axe-to-grind fashion to support a belief they already have. The fact is, their belief may be true. But by going about it in this way, evidence credibility may be lost or compromised.

Especially any future witness statements should be taken by disinterested professional third parties. Tapes and physical evidence should be totally handled and developed by people who know the rules for evidence and can solidly document the chain of its custody. These things should be done just for credibility even if the matter stays in house and doesn't get filed for any kind of court action. I don't get the impression that those kinds of things are being done when I read about devotees calling devotees to action to gather evidence and statements wherever such may exist, with the one probable exception of the Vaisnava attorney assigned by ISKCON to investigate the matter.

Howsoever, it should be made clear (or perhaps it has been and I'm not yet aware of it) if the attorney represents a client or is a "disinterested third party" investigator. Attorneys are usually professionally obligated to develop a case in favor of a client (whoever pays the attorney or enters into pro bono agreement with him/her) if he represents one. It would be unpleasant to learn only too late that what all interested parties are looking forward to as an independent, fully publishable report is actually covered by attorney/work product/privilege in behalf of some unnamed client and only select bit and pieces get published.

Although professional investigators (P.I.s particularly) can be downright monsters in evidence manipulation, the fact is, that at least in legal investigations such as criminal defense or insurance fraud, they are supposed uncover the actual facts of a case no matter who is paying them. Presumably the ISKCON attorney has arranged for that.

If the attorney in question is obligated by an attorney/client relationship and the matter does not get filed for action by either party in a public court, then the "plaintiffs" are on their own for making a case. And just for credibility, they should do their best to arrange to see to the above evidence standards for themselves.