I’ve been asked by a number of people if the recent lack of posts is an indication of a change in status in our belief in my Dad’s innocence. The answer to that is a resounding no. We have not found anything, seen anything, or been offered the opportunity to see anything that supports the report.
I’ve made it clear that we have not found any evidence on the phones. I’ve shown an example of data that deliberately misrepresented, so why should I assume they didn’t do that with other data?
I’ve made it clear that this process was anything but fair, and didn’t even adhere to traditionally held legal standards for investigations of this nature.
There was no chain of custody for the devices. It didn’t maintain impartiality or objectivity. At times it takes information that is neutral, and intentionally frames it in a negative context, which proves this was not an evidence based report but a narrative.
The report biased some interviewees against Dad by telling them they already had the proof that he was guilty BEFORE they questioned the people to get their views. The effect of that caused at least one interviewee revisit their observations and reframe it in a negative light.
They intentionally wrote the report as a narrative, not a presentation of known facts. Motives that cannot be even known were declared as intentionally devious behavior.
The investigation intentionally left out those that knew him best and could actually disprove a lot of of what was being said. It didn’t pursue any investigation in the areas where they claimed to have the most evidence. And the more extreme charges had no evidence whatsoever. And to reiterate, we have not seen what little evidence they claim was so plentiful on the phones.
One woman interviewed told us the investigators did not want to accept her answer that Dad never behaved inappropriately. She said she finally said “You can keep asking me this question, but Ravi and his entire family were never anything but kind and respectful to me, there is not other story here.” Another that was interviewed told us the investigator actually broke the table in anger when she defended Dad’s character.
It was a biased process and a biased report.
As for the blog, I will add this: Mom and Naomi were in severance discussions as a result of Mom being told to resign and Naomi being terminated. In May, RZIM withdrew severance offers for them, citing anger over this blog and my Mom’s email defending my Dad. This caused me to scale back the blog, since they were leveraging the wellbeing of my Mom and sister against my right to defend my Dad.
It was a threat that ultimately held, as when they eventually revisited a severance offer months later, it came with a mandatory muzzle.
We chose not to sell our voice.